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.
I have no problems with reading your arguments, but they should probably cover two points:
A. Why should we assume that the something which exists outside our universe is a god, instead of a multiverse or a quantum vacuum?
B. If we were to accept that it is a god, how do we logically progress from there to your specific god(Allah, I would presume) instead of they myriad of other proposed god(s)?
Valiya - "said that you can use any standard you want and tell me if there is complexity in nature or not"
OK great, I'll go with complexity as the logbase2 of information. We already established that information increases through mutation, so therefore complexity does as well.
Nyarlathotep... you seem to unnecessarily meander into unwanted subjects when you all along had simpler answers. You could have given this much earlier, when I had been asking you to provide me with your standard. That would have made this discussion much more meaningful. I agree, you have provided, a very valid point here. I will have to do my thinking to either concede the point to you or refute it. Thank you for this.
Fine Nyarlathotep....
Just recapping our positions, so we have clarity here.
1. You agree there is complexity in nature, and that it needs an explanation.
2. Your standard of complexity is logbase2 information. According to which increase in nucleotides have to be considered increase in information.
3. And you say that the logbase2 standard of increase in information serves as an adequate explanation for evolution.
Do you agree on all of these points above?
I don't agree with number 3 at all. The explanation for evolution is mutation + selection: Mutations cause changes, and these changes can effect how successful the organism is at reproducing because of its environment. When a change happens that gives the organism an advantage in its environment, we expect to see more descendants of that organism in that environment. That is it. The rest is just gory details. Some mutations provide advantages, most provide disadvantages. Some mutations increase information and complexity, some decrease them, and some don't change them at all. The environment does not select for complexity. The increase in complexity we see over time in a tiny portion of life forms is a drunkard's walk.
This is like saying that I am going to define what a fruit is… but the definition doesn’t fit an apple!!! But still I want you to accept that an apple is a fruit. How convenient? Do I need to say more to tell you that your logbase2 system has fallen on its face already? So, do you have any other standard for complexity?
I don't understand your complaint. You tried to summarize my position in 3 points and asked me confirm them. I decline to confirm one of them and said would I would confirm in its place.
If you accept mutation and selection, evolution basically comes along for the ride for free; as it is nothing more than mutation plus selection. Also your seeming requirement that the definition of complexity should explain evolution is... well.... odd to say the least.
Let me explain clearly.
Your argument is basically only saying this: “According to my definition of complexity, I can show you that mutation produces complexity. But that complexity DOES NOT explain evolution.”
Then what is the purpose of your definition. I don’t have a problem if you want to say that mutation adds information. But is that addition of information good enough to explain evolution? That’s the moot point.
You are saying, “no.” Then why define complexity?
According to your definition, even duplication of cancer causing oncogenes produces complexity. But will you accept that this complexity is a viable explanation of evolution?
Your definition only weakens your case. Hope that’s clear.
You seem to be demanding that complexity explain evolution. You are putting the cart before the horse. Evolution is supposed to explain biological complexity, not the opposite! I explained above how it does this with mutation, selection, and the drunkard's walk.
As a footnote this isn't my definition per see, complexity is often described as the logarithm of the number of bits of a system (although not always in base 2, I would have said logbase e, but logbase2 is simpler).
You are right: “Evolution is supposed to explain biological complexity, not the opposite”
If you remember, the whole argument began when I asked for an example of a mutation that produces complexity. You gave the example of E Coli. I didn’t accept it.
The problem was we couldn’t agree on what is complexity. That is why there was a need to define complexity. You defined complexity. But as per your definition, even the most harmful mutation, like cancer, produces complexity. But cancer is not an example of evolution as we both know. This shows that complexities that fit your description need not be an example for evolution. Therefore, I am saying that based on your definition of complexity, I can’t accept E Coli experiment is an example of evolution.
Let me give you an example: Imagine, we are debating over a round object trying to identify what it is.
I am saying that anything that tastes sweet is apple. Therefore, the round object has to be an apple because it is sweet. You ask me for a definition of sweetness. I give you a definition. But the problem is that this definition sweetness fits a lot of other things that we know are not apples. Therefore, based on my definition would you accept that the round object is apple? Of course not.
This is exactly the situation here. I can’t accept that based on your definition of complexity, that E Coli experiment proves evolution.
"This shows that complexities that fit your description need not be an example for evolution"
Of course! I never said complexity only arises from biological evolution, in fact it happens spontaneously, in situations that have nothing to do with biological evolution.
We showed you an example of a mutation, that added a new trait, and allowed the organism to become incredibly successful in its environment. That is biological evolution, plain and simple! You might say that evolution isn't enough to create a new species, god made the mutation happen, or some other complaint; but you can't say it didn't happen. This is why we told you that anyone who has access to a computer in the 21st century that says evolution doesn't happen is dumb on purpose.
This notion that without religion you cannot act in morally significant ways has been repeatedly debunked and is, imho, a non-issue.
Two of the most compelling arguments made in this regard came from George H. Smith and Andrew Bernstein. In his excellent book Atheism: The Case Against God Smith noted: "It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism... (but to) demonstrate that the belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity. If a person wishes to continue believing in a god, that is his prerogative, but he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity." Smith dealt with this issue (and much more) of religion and morality comprehensively and persuasively. http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X
Bernstein wrote an excellent piece as well over at The Objective Standard entitled: Religion Versus Morality. He makes an equally compelling argument stating, "A rational, fact-based, life-promoting morality is impossible on religious premises. Indeed, religion clashes with every rational principle and factual requirement of a proper, life-advancing ethics. A proper ethics, one capable of promoting flourishing human life on earth, requires the utter repudiation of religion—of all of its premises, tenets, implications, and consequences." https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/religion-versus-mo...
Both sources are required reading in my view as a starting point before taking a position on this issue. Armed with a review the intellectual heavy lifting these two have done one can then take a stab at this issue. However, odds are high that after reading both any lingering questions will have long been answered.
Thanks Bil_D.
I would like to see you post some argument against my case. Yes, I will read the books you suggested. However, if it would be hard to write a refutation for a book on a post. Please present your case, perhaps a net outtake of the book, and probably, i can over it, and maybe refute or concede, based on the soundness of the logic in it.
You gave a definition of complexity to show that a certain mutation is an example for evolution (E Coli). But I find that the same definition fits other mutations that are clearly not an example of evolution (Cancer). Then how can your example (E Coli) be accepted as conclusive proof for evolution, when complexity (according to your definition) can arise even from destructive mutation.
If that sounds dizzying to you… just answer these questions step by step and you will understand.
1. Do you agree that we are basically debating whether E Coli experiment is a valid example for evolution or not?
2. Do you accept there is complexity in E Coli experiment?
3. Do you accept there is complexity in cancer cell duplication?
4. Does your definition of complexity fit both the above situations?
5. Do you agree cancer is not an example of evolution?
6. Therefore, why should I think E Coli is a good example for evolution, when the complexity it produces is similar to cancer, as per your definition?
Then you said: “We showed you an example of a mutation, that added a new trait, and allowed the organism to become incredibly successful in its environment. That is biological evolution, plain and simple!”
Oh, there you go. You used the word trait. What is the definition for it? Isn’t that an ill-defined term? Is that dumb on purpose?
But no, I am not going to be throwing such arguments at you. Let me explain logically. First of all, I told you that the trait of processing citrate was already there in the organism. What was new was that the enzyme that controlled the entry of citrate into the cell lost its ability control what enters the cell. This is a regressive change. If you accept this example as a model for evolution, it would mean that organisms were devolving to become more and more primitive.
Here is the formal version of your argument:
A = increase of complexity
B = evolution
C = cancer
D = E bola experiment
1) D ∈ A
2) C ∈ A
3) C ∉ B
4) ஃD ∉ B
This is false. To make it true requires the premise that A ∈ B, which I have specifically said is not true. You have tried to secretly assign a hidden premise to my argument. If you don't want us to call you dishonest, you probably shouldn't do that.
Can you please state these equations. I don't know what that symbol means. Sorry.
A = increase of complexity
B = evolution
C = cancer
D = E bola experiment
1) D is a member of A
2) C is a member of A
3) C is NOT a member of B
4) Therefore: D is NOT a member of B
This argument fails. For a more concrete example:
A = animals
B = cats
C = Itchy
D = Scratchy
1) Scratchy is an animal
2) Itchy is an animal
3) Itchy is NOT a cat
4) Therefore: therefore Scratchy is NOT a cat
This conclusion is clearly false as stated. To make it true we could try to add: "0) All animals are cats". But then this would cause a contradiction between 0, 2 and 3. This argument is doomed.
The equation we need to prove is this: “D is a member of B.” I am sure you agree.
Now let’s consider the equations.
D is a member of A. (True)
C is a member of A. (True)
Therefore, C is a member of D. (Do you agree?)
C is not a member of B. (True)
Therefore, all that this proves is that 'C is a member of D', or Ecoli is Cancer. While, it DOES NOT prove that D is a member of B, which E Coli is evolution.
Valiya - "The equation we need to prove is this: “D is a member of B.” I am sure you agree."
First off, those aren't equations, math fail. Second, I formalized your argument, not mine, and your conclusion was that D is NOT a member of B, which is false.
-------
"1 )D is a member of A. (True)
2) C is a member of A. (True)
3) Therefore, C is a member of D. (Do you agree?)"
What planet do you live on? 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. That is madness. Here you have it folks, the logic of a creationist. If Joe is a cop, and John is a cop, then according to this creationist: John is Joe! This is why we say you are dumb on purpose.
Agreed nyalhothotep. C is not a member of D. But it still doesnt prove D is member of A. That is what u need to prove. Can u using ur exceptional genius formalize ur argument and show D is a member of A. As long as thats not proved then my argument stands.
Valiya - "Agreed nyalhothotep. C is not a member of D."
Then why did you say :"Therefore, C is a member of D."? Also you can't say the C is not a member of D. We can not determine that from the postulates.
-----------------------------
"But it still doesnt prove D is member of A. That is what u need to prove. Can u using ur exceptional genius formalize ur argument and show D is a member of A"
That was one of the postulates!
-----------------------------
Valiya - "Moreover, your formalization only highlights the nearness of cancer and ecoli. While evolution and ecoli are totally unrelated."
First off, that isn't true. Second, even if it was true, IT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT!
Moreover, your formalization only highlights the nearness of cancer and ecoli. While evolution and ecoli are totally unrelated.
Why i make a mistake i own up. Thats simple honesty. Now can u tell me if u can show ecoli is a member of evolution through ur formalization? As i am typng on phne i cant be more elaborate.
E is the set of all genetic changes (mutations for example)
F is the set of all things that have been selected for
G is the set of all biological evolutionary events
h is the E coli experiment event
1 G = (E∩F)
2 h ∈ E
3 h ∈ F
4 ஃ h ∈ (E∩F)
5 ஃ h ∈ G
4 and 5 necessarily follow given 1,2, and 3. So the only way 4 or 5 could be wrong, is if 1, 2, or 3 is wrong. If you want to attack 1, 2, or 3; I would recommend attacking 1, since it is the shakiest (IMO).This is just a restatement of what I've said in the thread many times.
For example: if you could come up with something that is selected for and is a genetic change that isn't evolution, then 1 would clearly be wrong. I can not think such a thing, but I can't be sure one does not exist. This is just one example of why you can't prove scientific theories. We have no way to show that such a thing does not exist. 2 and 3 could be attacked in similar ways, but it is more obvious with 1 (IMO).
Thanks nyarlathotep. But once again can u state them for me please. Or just tell me what the symbols mean.
Nyarlathotep:
"E is the set of all genetic changes (mutations for example)
F is the set of all things that have been selected for
G is the set of all biological evolutionary events
h is the E coli experiment event
1 G = (E∩F)
2 h ∈ E
3 h ∈ F
4 ஃ h ∈ (E∩F)
5 ஃ h ∈ G"
I think it means this:
An evolutionary event = any genetic change that is selected for
The E. Coli example = a genetic change
The E. Coli example = was selected for
So the E. Coli example = a genetic change that is selected for
Ergo:
The E. Coli example= an evolutionary event
That is what I got from it, and I think it is what he meant.
Yes what Travis said.
1 The set of G is the intersection of E and F
2 the point h is in the set of E
3 the point h is in the set of F
4 therefore, the point h is in the intersection of E and F
5 therefore, the point h is in the set of G
I do like the way you put it though, I like syllogisms and calculus, and it almost appeals to both.
most people do not understand it though especially with symbols :(
I prefer to used descriptive words, but with theists it doesn't matter they wont understand anyway.
Thanks TRAVIS for explaining. As NYARLATHOTEP has agreed to your explanation here is my response.
I wanted you, Nyaralthotep, to present the formalization of your argument. But see how cleverly you side stepped Complexity in this formalization.
Wasn’t your argument that the E Coli experiment is an example of evolution because it produced increase in complexity?
Wasn’t that the reason we had to haggle over Complexity?
Wasn’t that the reason you came up with a definition for Complexity?
And now you have come up with a totally new argument that Genetic Variation that gets selected is evolution.
If that was your argument why did you even bother defining complexity?
Did I not show to you that repeatedly that a genetic variation with selective advantage that loses complexity will only serve as a model for devolution and not evolution?
By changing the very premise of your argument you have once again demonstrated that your definition of complexity is invalid.
Pages