Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Cancer cells are mutated versions of their 'parent cell', and are therefore different. These mutations provide the cancer cell's ability to grow, 'breed', and thrive more than the non-mutated 'parent cell'. Since the definition of 'evolution' is: decent with modification, then, yes, cancer is a dandy example of it.
Please share this enlightenment with evolutionists...because i haven't heard any evolutionist worth his salt propound this example as proof for evolution... may be they don't know about it
Cancer, as I said earlier, is a dandy example of evolution. Re-read the definition I gave of evolution: decent with modification.
It seems pretty simple to me. A cancer cell is different from its 'parent' cell. It descended with a modification. What part of that don't you get?
It's also a dandy example of natural selection. A cancer cell has gained an advantage for the available resources in its environment. It is passing those success factors on to daughter cells. (If these success factors were not actually successful, then medical science would not be spending so much time and energy trying to cut them off at the pass, so to speak.). This also seems pretty simple.
Sure sounds to me like evolution. That you have never heard any evolutionist 'worth his salt' verbalized this does not change it.
And, BTW, how much is an evolutionist's salt worth? Given what you have said about the theory, I'd hazard the guess that you don't think salt if worth a heck of a lot.
Valiya
You continue with the same argument over and over again:
"the assumption that specified complexity can only arise from an intelligent cause"
Then you continue with that as a basic assumption, even though no one here has accepted your initial assumption.
When someone criticises your initial assumption, you only say "I have already explained that" or "I have given my reasons for that claim".
No you haven't. Unless you count your own feelings as evidence.
You haven't even come close to explaining it and there is no evidence you produce. You constantly repeat the infamous, worn out, fallacious "Watchmaker Analogy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
This is no evidence, it is not even valid logic or reasoning.
There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Most of us atheists are confident that the evidence is what we should follow.
90% of the worlds scientists have accepted evolution and rejected intelligent design. The list of scientists you produced from a christian creationist website, that reject evolution is a list of people who have no credibility and ZERO evidence to back it up, only unjustified claims. These are people who refuse to accept reality because of their beliefs.
The claims against evolution by serious scientists, are mostly on specific pieces of evidence, not on the theory. Every piece of evidence should absolutely be scrutinised thoroughly, as always in science.
---
The burden of proof is on you.
Repeating "specified complexity can only arise from intelligence", is not evidence.
I would like to LIKE this post twice. New suggestion for AR, add a DOUBLE LIKE button.
Have I not explained my argument? I have given you so many examples. I have never seen in my life specified complexity arise out of random processes. NEVER EVER.
If I told you that a part of something weighs more than the whole of it, will you accept it? It goes against our everyday experience. Unless I can prove otherwise, this everyday assumption is valid. This is how commonsensical my reasoning is.
Will you accept that a monkey can fiddle with some cogwheels and create a watch. Excuse the watch example again…but I will use it because it’s absolutely valid.
There has is only one cause for specified complexity. Intelligence. Are you saying no? Show me one example… it must be easy for you because we are living in a world filled with specified complexity from machines to computer codes to what not.
And about the overwhelming evidence for evolution…this is what I was discussing with some people here…and you will see how they show as proof for evolution destructive mutation. For them any gibberish like dfjjeirjiejfkdfjkdjf is information…and so even a set of garbled genetic information produced through mutation is proof for evolution.
If you have any better examples please bring them on. Instead of making assertions that there is proof and that scientists agree…bring them on and let’s analyze them. There are sceintists who disagree also, and you say they have no credibility… if that’s the case I pity the state of your country’s educational system, because they are holding leading positions in many reputed universities. Some of the proofs like nylonase…the very scentists who first claimed that a random mutation caused it now say that there a hidden mechanism we are only beginning to discover hat generated nylonase… so in short, there is a lot going on in the field…
As it goes against the commonsensical worldview that specified complexity does not arise through random processes…which I have demonstrated with the watch example because I am sure even you wouldn’t think that a 4 year old child can make a watch, because it requires intelligence higher than that…the burden of proof to show that specified complexity can arise sans intelligence, is now on you.
"Have I not explained my argument?"
No, you say "complexity infers intelligence"
That's it.
Then you go on explaining you PERSONAL OPINION on how the OPPOSITE of of your argument does not make sense. That is your personal opinion, not the slightest bit of explanation. And you don't even try to explain your own claim, but instead try to argument against the opposing position.
No, I do not accept "that a monkey can fiddle with some cogwheels and create a watch". That would require a very low understanding of the world. Unless you go with the "Give a a million monkeys a million years"-argument, then there is a chance. :)
Wow, you really can't help yourself from using the Watchmaker Analogy huh? Shame on you, give that one a rest.
"There has is only one cause for specified complexity. Intelligence. Are you saying no?"
I feel very unsure what you are including in your creationist term "specified complexity", so you won't give an answer for that.
However, I can answer "No" to the question "Does complexity require intelligence?".
Millions of small changes would do nicely to get complexity. Each change can in it self be very simple.
And there you go with "commonsensical" again.
What you consider common sense is very unclear and has nothing to offer, as you are completely stuck on the Watchmaker Analogy and assumptions without evidence.
"the burden of proof to show that specified complexity can arise sans intelligence, is now on you."
Sorry, but there is no escaping the burden of proof for those who make claims of a supernatural nature and against the evidence.
However, if I have the time I might dig up some example we can discuss later on.
Valiya - "If I told you that a part of something weighs more than the whole of it, will you accept it?"
It is possible given certain definitions of weight and certain circumstances. It is why we don't rely on our "commonsensical worldview" when there are better methods available.
-----------------
Valiya - "the burden of proof to show that specified complexity can arise sans intelligence, is now on you."
I think I'm willing to accept that burden, once you define it. You see, without that definition, any thing I demonstrate you will just be able to say "that isn't specified complexity" because you never defined it. You already did this with information.
Without the definition your argument is un-falsifiable, and there for worthless.
Ah... there you go again... now you want definition of weight, part, whole and so on... Nyarlathotep... you can go on like this endlessly, and duck giving reasonable answers to what is obvious.
I have explained to you what i mean by specific complexity... arrangement of a primitive parts (complexity) in a particular manner as to enable a function (specified).... here are examples - watches, biological cells, cycles etc.
Now, you can go on asking for further reductions in definitions because i have used words like "primitive" "parts" "particular" "manner" etc...and you can demand how to define each of those terms and how to measure them and so forth.... what a clever debating tactic?
Valiya - "now you want definition of weight, part, whole and so on"
strawman alert!
I didn't ask for those. I'm just pointing out there are definitions of weight where weight can be negative, which would allow for one part of a system to weight more than the whole system.
--------------------------
Valiya - "I have explained to you what i mean by specific complexity."
Except you haven't explained it mathematically, yet continue to use it in mathematical arguments. Let me show you a problem with the way you are using it:
What has more specific complexity? An apple or an orange? John says the apple has more. Sue says the orange has more. Bob says they have the same amount. How can we tell who is correct? We can't until you tell us how to measure it, or give a definition, or at least a unit or dimension.
But I am not asking you to show me something that is more complex than something else... i am not asking you to make measurements... just show me something that has a couple of parts, which have been arranged so that it performs some function, which cannot be performed if the arrangement is changed...
simple???
Valiya - "But I am not asking you to show me something that is more complex than something else"
Really?
Valiya - "the amount of specific complexity is far too high... a million times greater... than the example i gave above"
Valiya - "Somehow, they abandon it when it comes to explaining the complexity in nature which is way too complex than any other information system in the world"
Valiya - "If it told you that an airplane is more complex design than a bicycle"
Valiya - "Apply this to nature and you will find that it has far more specified complexity than the most complex machines made by man"
Valiya - "Between a cycle and an airplane, which do you think has more specific complexity"
Valiya - "Don't you have the answer for the question regarding cycle and airplane....is it so hard to tell which one is more complex in design???"
Valiya - "A cell, is far more complex than a watch I would say"
Valiya - "We are a zillion times more complex than a single celled organism. "
Valiya - "The complexity in a cell can be equated to a large factory. "
Valiya - "Earlier, we thought a cell is a simple structure... but today we know it is much more complex than a modern, hi-tech factory"
Valiya - "But somehow when it comes to the complexity in nature, which is way too complex than the example I quoted above, you easily offload it on chance. "
Valiya - "Something more complex than biology does need an explanation"
Valiya - "And then it progressed in stages, becoming more and more complex at each level."
All the quotes you showed were part of some argument. None of them are a direct challenge. As I don’t have your patience to scour through the thread for examples, here is one where I clearly spell out the challenge:
Sun, 01/25/2015 - 05:48
“So, if you can show me a computer code or something like that which evolved without the agency of a mind working on it…you will smash my case.”
So my challenge is only to show an example of specific complexity emerging without an intelligent cause…not measuring levels of complexity.
so i guess you missed my thread on computer code...
what was it???
Here: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/mutated-computer-program
Nyarlathotep or Pragmatic
Excuse my limited understanding of programming... but from what i can i understand, the mutated program is only spitting out some random things (or did i get it wrong?) If you can explain it in simpler terms, may be i can appreciate it. I gather that the program was for calculating 3+7. I want to know the outputs you got from the mutated versions.
If you can explain to me what exactly
Nyarlathotep or Pragmatic
Excuse my limited understanding of programming... but from what i can i understand, the mutated program is only spitting out some random things (or did i get it wrong?) If you can explain it in simpler terms, may be i can appreciate it. I gather that the program was for calculating 3+7. I want to know the outputs you got from the mutated versions.
If you can explain to me what exactly
The outputs are listed in the thread, and clearly labeled, along with my notes explaining them. Maybe you could ask a more specific question, and put it in the thread?
fine thanks
i will have a detailed look and respond by tomorrow
CMALLEN
I think you have raised the need to bring measurements into the argument now. And that’s what I am very weak at. So, I am just doing it intuitively…
Many mathematicians and information experts have worked out the probability of the information in DNA arising through natural processes and have stated that the probability is so low to the point of it being zero.
But since, I don’t understand how exactly it’s worked out… let me tell you how I look at it.
As SC is the arrangement of primitive parts to achieve a function – the more parts that are required for the function to be achieved the more complex it is. This way, I can analyze the probability of a particular SC arising through chance. However, my method (as I was always allergic to math) is quite intuitive...
To expand on your wonderful example of CBGB… consider that I have a series of characters: &$*#O@)R%*&*$#(WO*FJ($*#(#)__W)_#(%&*%&)+. This is absolute rubbish to us. However, say a Chinese man comes along and says that this means “China is a land of communists” in Cantonese language. I would immediately deduce that this has been created by someone who knows the language, as I am sure any thinking person would conclude.
This is so because for so many characters to fall into a sequence to produce a meaningful sentence in a language…it is impossible that a monkey on a keyboard could have produced it.
Now, let’s say there is an entire page of characters that can be meaningfully decoded by some language expert. Though it is rubbish to us, the moment the decoding is done, it becomes almost certain that an intelligent agency has produced it… though the method of deducing it is intuitive, I think it will be accepted by all. Because the complexity is so high.
What would you make of such a book of information, which is meaningless to all, but perfectly sensible to a man who knows an alien language?
By that same method of deduction… information in the DNA has more characters than what fits not just one page, but tomes of literature…and all of it meaningfully sequenced to produce specific functions…and thus I deduce that it’s caused by intelligence.
Valiya - "Many mathematicians and information experts have worked out the probability of the information in DNA arising through natural processes and have stated that the probability is so low to the point of it being zero."
No. No one has ever performed that calculation, because the information required to make that calculation is not known. Anyone who tells you they have is pulling your leg.
Here is a good example:
What is the probability of accidentally getting a turtle in the mail in a certain unit of time? It is:
(number of turtles that get mailed in the unit of time) * (probability of a turtle being addressed to the wrong person) * (probably someone will accidentally put your address on the package) * (probability the post office will actually deliver the turtle)
Notice, to actually preform the calculation, we need to know all of those numbers, and to be honest I don't know any of them, and I doubt anyone else does either. If we are missing even a single one of them, we can't calculate the actual probability. Anyone who gives you a numeric answer to the turtle question is bullshitting you. Anyone who gives you a numeric answer to the question "probability of the information in DNA arising through natural processes" is also bullshitting you. In fact, the problem is much worse for the DNA problem, because we can at least make estimates of the values in the turtle problem. In the DNA problem there are values no one has any clue of their size.
"To expand on your wonderful example of CBGB… consider that I have a series of characters: &$*#O@)R%*&*$#(WO*FJ($*#(#)__W)_#(%&*%&)+. This is absolute rubbish to us. However, say a Chinese man comes along and says that this means “China is a land of communists” in Cantonese language. I would immediately deduce that this has been created by someone who knows the language, as I am sure any thinking person would conclude."
I considered using a spookily similar argument in my last post, but I decided to save it for later.
I am a little nonplussed that you used this argument to support your stance. It is entirely possible for a monkey on a keyboard to produce a complex string of characters that can be read as meaningful words by an observer. Some of what said monkey produces is going to be nonsense to this observer, and some is going to appear to be language. Similarly, some of what life based upon DNA produces is successful at surviving in its environment and some is not. We don't see the vast majority of what is not successful because it wasn't successful.
I don't really know where I'm going with this yet, but I think it's pretty good so far. More later.
CMALLEN
As I dread treading into the realm of math… I am continuing my argument based on intuitive calculation.
If you saw one shoddy sentence on page with one meaningful word and the rest nonsense…there is a chance that it was random.
But if you saw more meaningful words and one misspelt nonsense…the chance of randomness drops.
And if you had more sentences….all meaningful, but for a few errors… I think by now randomness is fully eliminated.
What would you say about pages and pages of meaningful text???? Zero chance for randomness.
DNA is an encyclopedia.
Your second contention was about subjectivity of meaning. This can also be eliminated with probability. If you can read sensible meaning (however subjectivity) into pages and pages of otherwise gibberish text…then you can be sure that it’s not random.
Take your first example of a few random letters reminding you about some personal song or something of that song, and thereby meaningful to you.
Now add to that more random letters…and this now reminds you about you singing that song to your ex girl-friend – add more letters- and it reminds of more things from those days, such it an entire chapter from your life gets played out in front of your eyes through a series of random letters running into pages.
Rest assured that someone who knows everything about your life is playing a trick on you!!!
Valiya - " I am continuing my argument based on intuitive calculation"
Using intuition to work with probability (or math in general) is a recipe for disaster. Remember the thread about probability?
Oh hell, are we still having arguments over probability? You should abandon that track posthaste, as it will never actually tell you if something had happened, only the probability of it happening. The improbable happens every second of every day somewhere. Arguments from probability are the single WORST form of argumentation it is possible to make in the arenas of biology or history. It doesn't matter how likely it was that an event happened, only whether it actually happened, its likelihood has no bearing on whether it actually did happen.
I would stay away from a mathematical argument if I were you, as it does not appear to be particularly compelling or useful in this circumstance, using probability without evidence is like trying to use glasses without eyes. I would also avoid "intuitive calculation" as well, considering we spend DECADES learning how to calculate precisely because it is counter-intuitive, and using intuition to calculate is like using a baked potato for a baseball. Let me put it a different way...
The chances of some things may be extremely miniscule, but in a universe millions of years old with innumerable planets, they become the next best thing to inevitable. Even if you could accurately assess a probability for the likelihood of DNA arising naturally, and that probability was miniscule, you still wouldn't have actually done anything to prove that it didn't arise naturally. The idea that it was magically and specially created would still have to meet its burden of proof regardless, and if it couldn't, then it still would not be a viable model. The case is actually much worse than just that, however, as every new emerging pattern that has been observed has occurred NATURALLY. This means that, no matter what else can be said about DNA, it is a seemingly natural product of replication.
TRAVIS
I would actually take your advice on dropping math… for the simple reason that I am extremely weak in it. But then, does that mean that I should simply stop trying to understand the reality around me? No.
This is the reason I am using my intuition. However, I am not using it in some deceptive manner. I am using exactly as you or for that matter any human-being in the world would to make judgments in life.
An opened safe is indication that someone has cracked the secret number or is in the know of it. We totally eliminate the possibility of a burglar punching random numbers to open it.
This is what I mean by intuitive assessment of design. And we all do it every day.
Coming to your argument about probability increasing with lengthened time. Fine, there are some math nerds who have worked out the probability for this and have said the probability is still very low… but since we have agreed to abandon math, why should I buy that argument.
I have only lived for a very short period of time… and there is no way I can assess processes that long to make a judgment, while my intuitive judgements of the current reality goes strongly against that argument. So, until my intuition can be proved to be wrong, I think I am right to stick to it.
Moreover, speaking particularly about evolution… there are ways we can actually catch a glimpse of evolutionary effects over long periods…and that is by looking at bacteria. In a human life time, we can actually analyze millions and millions of generations of bacteria, which is the human equivalent of millions of years…which is good enough to see some big changes happen.
Yet, we don’t see such evolution taking place in bacteria…
The maximum one can show are micro-evolution – even that when subject to deep scrutiny throws serious questions about the mechanisms involved.
Valiya - "An opened safe is indication that someone has cracked the secret number or is in the know of it. We totally eliminate the possibility of a burglar punching random numbers to open it. "
Why would we do that? It is a common technique...
----------------------------------------
Valiya - "Fine, there are some math nerds who have worked out the probability"
If that is a reference to your earlier statement about the probability of getting a specific dna sequence from random placement of molecules, no. No one has worked that out. And it does not matter how smart they are, the numbers need to work it out are not known to anyone.
It would be like trying to calculate someone's grade in a class, without having access to any information about the scores they have received on their assignments. It don't matter how smart you are, it is an impossible task without that information.
Nyarl
“It would be like trying to calculate someone's grade in a class, without having access to any information about the scores they have received on their assignments. It don't matter how smart you are, it is an impossible task without that information.”
If probability of life evolving through natural forces is so hard to measure, then should I simply accept that it’s probable? What gives you the confidence to believe it is probable? At best we can only say may be it happened, or may be it did not.
Valiya - "If probability of life evolving through natural forces is so hard to measure, then should I simply accept that it’s probable?"
I never said you should, don't put word in my mouth.
----------------
Valiya - "What gives you the confidence to believe it is probable? "
I never said I did, don't put words into my mouth.
----------------
Valiya - "At best we can only say may be it happened, or may be it did not. "
Right, except that isn't what you have been saying. You have been saying it is impossible.
Pages