First Principles

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure if you'll be back or not IT, but there was a point (or question) that I forgot to ask before.

 

I realized on my way home that somewhere in our discussion the tables turned, and all of a sudden I have to provide some evidence that there are self-caused quantum events. But now we have to turn the tables back again and I have to ask you what kind of evidence can you provide that God is self-caused or un-caused?

 

I believe science is one step ahead of you, since casimir effect and quantum tunneling are real and observable and testable facts of reality, be it caused or not caused, while the God hypothesis is nothing more than just that, a hypothesis. Quantum tunneling is the reason why the Intel chips can't be made smaller now, the electron will start jumping between the lines and you'll get unpredictable results. And science have not yet been able to decide if quantum effects are caused, self-caused or something completely different. But what do you have to provide as evidence that God would be un-caused? Why can't God be caused too, of yet another higher being?

 

If your answer is that it's impossible to think of an infinite regression of larger and larger "God" beings in the past, well, why is that impossible to think off? What is the argument that something impossible is the explanation to something unknown (God and Universe), only because another impossible is inconcievable (infinite super-god regression), while the possible explanation is rejected (i.e. QM)?

 

(Me being too "smart for my own good"? Nah. I want to think I'm pretty ordinary, and I do get slapped around pretty frequently by people with more knowledge and deeper thoughts than me. But I try to correct myself when it does happen, and leave the scene quickly.)

[infotheorist]

God cannot be self-caused, because it doesn't make any sense. To be self-caused, God would have to have existed before he existed to cause his existence. If he had a beginning, then he is finite, now we have just moved one step back in the process. If it is an infinite regression of finite causes, we are then saying the cause of the universe is finite but infinite. That violates the law of non-contradiction. The fact that black holes exist does not nullify an infinite being. It is the same thing that I have said from the beginning based on my initial post. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is no such thing as causality, and if the universe had a beginning and needs a cause, scientifically the cause needs to be uncaused. So I am not sure how science is ahead of me on that one.

 

I agree with 99% of Star Wars fans that the last movies just could never hope to capture the magic of the originals. Why is that? Is it because the originals were so original for their time?

[chefranden]

You are too smart for your own good. Don't hurt yourself. By the way, I never used to get involved in deep discussions like this. I was always smart, but I did just enough to get by. When my wife and I first got married, our deepest discussion was how Anakin turned to the dark side. My how things change. Have a good one. The book is on the way.

 

Be careful, we are addicting. Some Christians have stayed for years.

[Ouroboros]

God cannot be self-caused, because it doesn't make any sense. To be self-caused, God would have to have existed before he existed to cause his existence.

So he is un-caused, which means that he existed from infinite time, i.e. he existed before he existed without causing himself to exist.

 

(God cannot create himself. He's not omnipotent! )

 

If he had a beginning, then he is finite, now we have just moved one step back in the process. If it is an infinite regression of finite causes, we are then saying the cause of the universe is finite but infinite.

Not necessarily the Universe, but whatever was before the Universe. The hot-state-singularity or whatever one should call it. If you want to call that "God", I'm fine with that, and the first quantum tunneling as the first cause, I'm fine with that too, but I don't see why this hot-energy-plasma-thingy must have a will, thought or a plan. (Which is the general idea of a "God")

 

Does God think? Does he want things? Does he feel? Is those emotions and processes bound to a temporal existence or can processes (step-by-step conclusions and thought processes) be done without a time function? Everything we know of in the Universe (first principle) requires time to process things and thought, so if you claim God wants and wills and thinks, with the same coin we have to conclude God is temporal. Or do you yet again take a step outside your own premise to prove you conclusion?

 

That violates the law of non-contradiction. The fact that black holes exist does not nullify an infinite being. It is the same thing that I have said from the beginning based on my initial post. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is no such thing as causality, and if the universe had a beginning and needs a cause, scientifically the cause needs to be uncaused. So I am not sure how science is ahead of me on that one.

Your arguments are philosophical and not scientifically provable. You don't even have one single experiment that can slightly hint to that God is uncaused. You have your arguments, and they're based on a premise that science is wrong about quantum events, or rather you take only one side of the arguments without even considering the possibility of the other. Just for a moment think of the possibility that quantum events are un-caused, where would it lead you?

 

Science is a step ahead of you, since they have done experiments for a very long time to figure out QM, while you still can't give one experiment to prove god or his nature. God is only a hypothesis, while QM is promoted to theory.

[infotheorist]

(God cannot create himself. He's not omnipotent! )

I assume this comment was a joke. If God is the source of logic, then he cannot do something violates logic like make a square circle.

 

Does God think? Does he want things? Does he feel? Is those emotions and processes bound to a temporal existence or can processes (step-by-step conclusions and thought processes) be done without a time function? Everything we know of in the Universe (first principle) requires time to process things and thought, so if you claim God wants and wills and thinks, with the same coin we have to conclude God is temporal. Or do you yet again take a step outside your own premise to prove you conclusion?

As far as characteristics of an infinite God, we then would have to look at special revelation (i.e. the bible). You are correct that for us to think and talk, it takes time, which God is not bound by. How does that happen? I have no idea.

 

That violates the law of non-contradiction. The fact that black holes exist does not nullify an infinite being. It is the same thing that I have said from the beginning based on my initial post. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is no such thing as causality, and if the universe had a beginning and needs a cause, scientifically the cause needs to be uncaused. So I am not sure how science is ahead of me on that one.

Your arguments are philosophical and not scientifically provable. You don't even have one single experiment that can slightly hint to that God is uncaused. You have your arguments, and they're based on a premise that science is wrong about quantum events, or rather you take only one side of the arguments without even considering the possibility of the other. Just for a moment think of the possibility that quantum events are un-caused, where would it lead you?

 

Science is a step ahead of you, since they have done experiments for a very long time to figure out QM, while you still can't give one experiment to prove god or his nature. God is only a hypothesis, while QM is promoted to theory.

Now come one Hans, we have to play fair. Of course my argument is philosophical, as is yours. The whole area of quantum physics is philosophical. I have already pointed out that the entire field of science is built on a philosophical first principle, causality. If we start with a philosophical assumption, does that mean we cannot come back around to a philosophical conclusion? You keep saying "if events are uncaused." Well yes, if something can come from nothing without a cause, then of course we could have all kinds of things springing into existence. That is still a big "if." So you can't put me on that road and say that you are not on it yourself. This whole concept is philosophical in nature.

[Ouroboros]

Does God think? Does he want things? Does he feel? Is those emotions and processes bound to a temporal existence or can processes (step-by-step conclusions and thought processes) be done without a time function? Everything we know of in the Universe (first principle) requires time to process things and thought, so if you claim God wants and wills and thinks, with the same coin we have to conclude God is temporal. Or do you yet again take a step outside your own premise to prove you conclusion?

As far as characteristics of an infinite God, we then would have to look at special revelation (i.e. the bible). You are correct that for us to think and talk, it takes time, which God is not bound by. How does that happen? I have no idea.

Well, my problem with the infinite God that is non-temporal is that we have no observed phenomenon that can prove this kind of creatures can exist. So from the standpoint of scientific study, it's very implausible that God has those attributes and still can think or reason. How can he reason if he already knows the outcome of the reason? Reason implies a process of logical steps, steps implies cause-and-effect in the sphere of thoughts. One thought leads to another. So does God know all the conclusions before he even stipulates his arguments?

 

Now come one Hans, we have to play fair. Of course my argument is philosophical, as is yours. The whole area of quantum physics is philosophical. I have already pointed out that the entire field of science is built on a philosophical first principle, causality.

Well, does the philosophy tell you if Quantum fluctuations are or are not caused? It doesn't, does it? You have to assume one way or another, and your assumption would be based on your belief and what you want to prove. That makes the first principle standing on shaky grounds. First principle assume that quantum fluctuations and other events are caused. And why do you assume that?

 

If we start with a philosophical assumption, does that mean we cannot come back around to a philosophical conclusion? You keep saying "if events are uncaused." Well yes, if something can come from nothing without a cause, then of course we could have all kinds of things springing into existence. That is still a big "if." So you can't put me on that road and say that you are not on it yourself. This whole concept is philosophical in nature.

From what I understand, virtual particles spring into existence and disappear within Planck space and time.

 

And here's the twist to it all, I do believe in a first cause (to this current state of the Universe), but not a "God", but a quantum event. And what caused the quantum event? Well, nothing or something, the problem is that time and space didn't exist before that quantum event, so cause and effect didn't exist. On the other hand, if cause and effect, time and space did exist before that quantum event then there were no first-cause...

 

--edit--

 

And when it comes to proof, science or philosphical discussion, you asked me about the proof for quantum fluctuations, which is not a philosophical argument but a scientific question. Also philosophy can not be discussed in a vacuum, outside of reality, we can't invent what we want and disregard what science says. If science would prove that the world was created (a breach of the natural order), then I would not argue against it.

[infotheorist]

Now come one Hans, we have to play fair. Of course my argument is philosophical, as is yours. The whole area of quantum physics is philosophical. I have already pointed out that the entire field of science is built on a philosophical first principle, causality.

Well, does the philosophy tell you if Quantum fluctuations are or are not caused? It doesn't, does it? You have to assume one way or another, and your assumption would be based on your belief and what you want to prove. That makes the first principle standing on shaky grounds. First principle assume that quantum fluctuations and other events are caused. And why do you assume that?

Hans, you are right that my assumption about quantum physics is based on my belief in theism and universally observed cause and effect. The same can be pointed out about your assumption about quantum physics based on your belief in atheism. Since quantum physics is still up for debate, we can then take opposite sides. There is nothing unreasonable or illogical in assuming that there still may be undiscovered laws governing quantum physics. To say that causality is on shaky ground is probably pushing it a little far seeing as how we would have to put all of science, including the study of quantum physics on shaky ground then. My first post suggested taking the evidence and the first principles of logic and science and devise a theory that supported what we know. I wanted to see if it was possible to develop a theory without violating any of the first principles. For days now, we have been debating the naturalistic option which has to do away with causality. We even have to use causality to deny causality. Since quantum physics appears to violate causality, but has not definitively been proven to do so, we will just have to leave it there for now until the evidence comes in and the jury can make up its mind. Besides, you make my head hurt .

[Ouroboros]

Every time I see that you have added a response to the topic I think: "damn, he got something I can't answer; now he got something good." And I open it and enjoy your answer, and can see that "it makes sense, even though I don't completely agree..."

 

And yesterday I was thinking of this discussion, and you're absolutely right, we kind of got of topic (mostly because of me), and you're also right, I don't have any absolute evidence against your first principle, only theories that might be but maybe not. And I understand what you're getting at here: can an alternative theory where no cause-and-effect is involved be made . And at the moment we probably can't say there is (since so many theoretical physicians are working on so many ideas, it's hard to be sure where it's all going right now).

 

I skimmed through an interesting article in a resent issue of New Scientist, where they talk about making a new kind of computer (it's only on a pure speculative basis of course, and they call it the quantum gravity computer). In the article they have this interesting statement: "not only might it be supremely powerful, defying the logic of cause and effect to give instantaneous answers, it might also tell us exactly how the universe works. It might even tell us how our minds produce the phenomenon we call consciousness." So maybe we don't have an alternative to "first principle" until this one is built?

 

And truly, I'm not trying to deny or do away with causality, my standpoint is agnostic in most areas, which means that I can see contradictions and paradoxes in most every paradigm, and can't approve or accept one over the other, simply because I'm limited as a finite being (and human brain) to grasp all in the universe. It is a systemic problem, where the software module is trying to understand the operating system. It can't, because the full knowledge requires that the "module" becomes the "whole system". We will never have a full understanding, so I don't claim that I do, but I do claim that I don't. (That's a tongue twister!)

[infotheorist]

Hans, this is why I respect you. Just when I thought you were about to start slinging mud, you come back with a very gracious response. Thank you. That computer thing sounds interesting. I wonder if it will be better than my mac. I also liked the software and operating system analogy, because you know what it takes to make software -- a designer . I thought you might like that.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, this is why I respect you. Just when I thought you were about to start slinging mud, you come back with a very gracious response. Thank you.

And the same to you.

 

You're one of the lucky few. I usually sling mud, like a true monkey.

 

 

That computer thing sounds interesting. I wonder if it will be better than my mac.

Like the old Macs that had the "bomb" when it crashed, in this new computer they'll have a "big bang" instead!

 

I also liked the software and operating system analogy, because you know what it takes to make software -- a designer . I thought you might like that.

Damn it. You got me.

 

Hmm... does the software module have free will? ... answer: Yes, in Windows they crash whenever they want.

 

Have you ever heard about the ideas of Universe 2.0? The idea is to create a new universe. And it isn't possible today, but one day it might be. The possible conclusion (we had this discussion a year ago or so) is that we are the result of our self. We create a new universe, and in it, new creatures come into existence through evolution, and those creatures are ... us. And this would fit into the idea of a universe that folds in on itself, and recursively just exists.

 

Talking about the designer argument, you never brought up the watch maker... if it's in the book, I'll address it there and give you a response you might not have heard before. (Or maybe you have... we'll see)

 

 

--edit--

 

Oh, come to think of it. The designer argument from software designer, consider that we're a team developing the software. Does it mean the analogy supports polytheism?

[infotheorist]

Oh, come to think of it. The designer argument from software designer, consider that we're a team developing the software. Does it mean the analogy supports polytheism?

You don't stop. By the way, no need to bring up the watch maker. I am only vaguely familiar. I am probably more familiar with Richard Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker. My problem with polytheism has to do with an eternal infinite god outside of space and time. Is it possible to have 2 (or more) infinite, eternal non-physical beings. It seems like they would have to be separated by space or time. I know you were joking, but I thought I would address it anyway.

[Ouroboros]

We told you. This site is addictive.

 

Regarding the polytheism, maybe it's the n-ity of gods that are infinite? A tri-unite god can also be infinite according to Christianity, so I don't buy your counter argument. (And yes, my comment it was more of a joke, but the best jokes are half-true.)

 

But talking about software as argument for a designer, have you ever heard about genetic algorithms? They've been in use in real life applications for 20 years or less now, and to me they could be used as a designer argument for Theistic Evolution or Deism. These program are not designed to be the final solution to a problem, but they're made to learn and modify themselves through random mutations, and the better fitted ones survive and reproduce, and after a while the programs will tend to solve the problems better than the smartest polynomial mathematicians can come up with.

 

The first implementation was to control the oil pipelines in the 80's, and today (at least that's what I heard some years back) this kind of technology is used for the high-end network routers. The algorithms are basically a reproduction of how evolution works, and it gives good results. Would that kind of designer be enough to convince you that Evolution could be created by this Designer of yours?

[infotheorist]

Regarding the polytheism, maybe it's the n-ity of gods that are infinite? A tri-unite god can also be infinite according to Christianity, so I don't buy your counter argument. (And yes, my comment it was more of a joke, but the best jokes are half-true.)

Triune God is still one God, not many gods. That one has been tried before.

 

But talking about software as argument for a designer, have you ever heard about genetic algorithms? They've been in use in real life applications for 20 years or less now, and to me they could be used as a designer argument for Theistic Evolution or Deism. These program are not designed to be the final solution to a problem, but they're made to learn and modify themselves through random mutations, and the better fitted ones survive and reproduce, and after a while the programs will tend to solve the problems better than the smartest polynomial mathematicians can come up with.

 

The first implementation was to control the oil pipelines in the 80's, and today (at least that's what I heard some years back) this kind of technology is used for the high-end network routers. The algorithms are basically a reproduction of how evolution works, and it gives good results. Would that kind of designer be enough to convince you that Evolution could be created by this Designer of yours?

I am not familiar with genetic algorithms. In answer to your question, no, it wouldn't make me believe in theistic evolution. Whether it is thesitic or not, the information theory just doesn't add up scientifically. But I will look into the genetic algorithms, because it is new to me.

[Ouroboros]

Regarding the polytheism, maybe it's the n-ity of gods that are infinite? A tri-unite god can also be infinite according to Christianity, so I don't buy your counter argument. (And yes, my comment it was more of a joke, but the best jokes are half-true.)

Triune God is still one God, not many gods. That one has been tried before.

And so is N-iune God. (N=3 or N=5 or N=100, who knows? or... N=0)

 

I am not familiar with genetic algorithms. In answer to your question, no, it wouldn't make me believe in theistic evolution. Whether it is thesitic or not, the information theory just doesn't add up scientifically. But I will look into the genetic algorithms, because it is new to me.

The Information Theory doesn't add up? (To change subject a bit) Does the ERV (endogenous retro virus) add up? What are the chances that humans have 12 same ERV insertions as the chimps, apes and gorillas?

 

Wait, the Info Theory doesn't add up, you mean this argument that "no new information can be added" or something like that?

[infotheorist]

Wait, the Info Theory doesn't add up, you mean this argument that "no new information can be added" or something like that?

The easiest way for me to respond is to point you back to my closing comments post #110. Look at the middle paragraphs. I guess I could have quoted them here. How lazy of me. I worked my tail off in my yard today, and I am tired. I am going to chill out. In Georgia we have all of these crazy vines that take over your yard. I think my yard may actually be connected to your yard via these vines somehow.

[Ouroboros]

Wait, the Info Theory doesn't add up, you mean this argument that "no new information can be added" or something like that?

The easiest way for me to respond is to point you back to my closing comments post #110. Look at the middle paragraphs. I guess I could have quoted them here. How lazy of me. I worked my tail off in my yard today, and I am tired. I am going to chill out. In Georgia we have all of these crazy vines that take over your yard. I think my yard may actually be connected to your yard via these vines somehow.

Thanks. I did read that post... many moons ago.

 

Sure, the amino acids are letters, the genes are paragraphs (like a quote), and the DNA is basically a book of good quotes. Now, what's interesting is to ask the question "who reads the book"? It is not us, it is not God, and it is not my pet dog. It is other proteins. Nature is reading its own writings. Why can't nature understand to interpret nature? It's a matter of information processing, not of information understanding. We anthropomorphise natures mechanical code into some kind of higher level of ideas. That's not what the DNA does. DNA is the encoding of protein production.

 

Like I referred to before, look into Genetic algorithms, because they work in a similar way as DNA and mutation (and selection too), and it works. If one wants to believe in God, GA does suggest it to be very plausible for a god of any kind to "create" life and humantiy through evolution. Just think of what the Bible does say in Genesis, "and let the oceans bring forth...". God could have commanded the oceans to start the process of evolution, because the Bible does support an idea of natural process with the word "bring forth". The word can be translated to "deliver" as well. So if God commanded earth and water to "deliver" life, how can a Christian be so resolute that the only way this could have been done by the earth and water is instantaneous production of said life. Why not gradual?

[infotheorist]

It's a matter of information processing, not of information understanding.

I guess I am not sure what this statement means. Does it mean that information is just produced by DNA, but does not have to be understood by the rest of the organism? Can random proteins be "understood" the same as the specific proteins?

We anthropomorphise natures mechanical code into some kind of higher level of ideas. That's not what the DNA does. DNA is the encoding of protein production.

DNA does produce proteins. Proteins are required for DNA. Where did the first amino acids come from, and how did those amino acids get arranged into the double helix structure of DNA? There has to be mutations in the genetic code for natural selection. How did that happen before the code existed? Is that where you would insert god?

 

Like I referred to before, look into Genetic algorithms, because they work in a similar way as DNA and mutation (and selection too), and it works. If one wants to believe in God, GA does suggest it to be very plausible for a god of any kind to "create" life and humantiy through evolution. Just think of what the Bible does say in Genesis, "and let the oceans bring forth...". God could have commanded the oceans to start the process of evolution, because the Bible does support an idea of natural process with the word "bring forth". The word can be translated to "deliver" as well. So if God commanded earth and water to "deliver" life, how can a Christian be so resolute that the only way this could have been done by the earth and water is instantaneous production of said life. Why not gradual?

I just took a quick look at the GA. It looks like a good example of what we always see in the area of evolution in genetics. There are always limitations on genetic evolutionary changes. First of all, most mutations are lethal or harmful. Mutations that promote survival don't cause species to change into other species. The poor Drosophila fruit fly has been used for 80 years to demonstrate what happens with genetic changes. I worked with those pesky little things back in my genetics classes. The fruit fly, although genetically altered, always remained a fruit fly. These are examples of microevolution. Guys like Stephen Jay Gould had problems with gradualism. That's why they came up with punctuated equilibrium. Why? They had to account for the lack of transitional fossils and the Cambrian explosion. How do you account for the paleontological record? By the way, why are you arguing for theistic evolution when your position has always been "no god?"

 

How does evolution account for irreducible complexity? For example, the flagellum of a bacterium. The strucure is rather complex with its arrangement of microtubules and other components. It is probably the most efficient motor in the universe. Without all of the parts together at the same time, the flagellum does not function. Can gradualism account for irreducible complexity?

[Saviourmachine]

Sorry, this is off topic, but I couldn't resist.

 

DNA does produce proteins. Proteins are required for DNA. Where did the first amino acids come from, and how did those amino acids get arranged into the double helix structure of DNA? There has to be mutations in the genetic code for natural selection. How did that happen before the code existed? Is that where you would insert god?

That's where you need a kind of order indeed. Order for free. This has to do with self-organization, complexity theory and non-linear dynamics. I recommend (again) Kauffman, with "At Home in the Universe". Very easy to read!

 

He introduces autocatalytic sets for a layman public. An assemblage of 2000 enzymes arosen by mother gradual evolution is a sheer miracle. However, let us consider a large amount of enzymes that each is able to catalyze a certain reaction between two enzymes. What will happen when a large amount of different enzymes is put in one place? There will suddenly arise a network of all kind of different enzymes that catalyze each other!!!

 

This should be part of every school curriculum.

 

I just took a quick look at the GA. It looks like a good example of what we always see in the area of evolution in genetics. There are always limitations on genetic evolutionary changes. First of all, most mutations are lethal or harmful.

Not true, most are neutral.

 

Mutations that promote survival don't cause species to change into other species. The poor Drosophila fruit fly has been used for 80 years to demonstrate what happens with genetic changes. I worked with those pesky little things back in my genetics classes. The fruit fly, although genetically altered, always remained a fruit fly. These are examples of microevolution. Guys like Stephen Jay Gould had problems with gradualism. That's why they came up with punctuated equilibrium. Why? They had to account for the lack of transitional fossils and the Cambrian explosion. How do you account for the paleontological record? By the way, why are you arguing for theistic evolution when your position has always been "no god?"

There are a lot of selective pressures. It is not "natural" selection but sexual selection that caused women to have such nice, large, breasts, and that gave reproductive advantage to such beautiful peacock tail (of which peafowl females also approve of). Gould had the nerve to suggest that there are such things as bottlenecks etc. over the course of evolution. That's true of course. The idea of punctuated equilibrium is quite similar to Kauffman's idea that there have to be a limited set of attractors in a non-linear dynamic system to prevent the system to become chaotic.

 

How does evolution account for irreducible complexity? For example, the flagellum of a bacterium. The strucure is rather complex with its arrangement of microtubules and other components. It is probably the most efficient motor in the universe. Without all of the parts together at the same time, the flagellum does not function. Can gradualism account for irreducible complexity?

Depends. You probably read Dawkins. It depends on what functions the parts-not-together can perform. The transitions from one functional entity to another by point(!) mutations (changes, deletions and additions) can be modeled by Markov models. (Like T9 on your phone.)

 

The evidence against "intelligent design" is IMHO overwhelming, or god is deceiving. Not everything in DNA codes for genes (although more than previously thought). So positions of genes (DNA sequences that make sense and code for proteins) differ from specie to specie. Why should inter-gene distances be according to the (evolutionary) phylogenetic tree? Genes can become corrupt, such corrupt genes are called pseudogenes. They differ only in one or two points from the original. (Sorry, that I'm already using the terms from my worldview.) The exact places in which those mutations take place differ from specie to specie. A gorilla may have a mistake on another place than a chimpansee. And again, the positions at which those mistakes can be found correlate with the phylogenetic tree. (So, we share mistakes with the chimpansee, more than with the gorilla, etc.)

 

And I suppose you know the nylon digesting bacteria (not a lab. example) that was able to do so after a "shift" in its DNA.

[Kuroikaze]

DNA does produce proteins. Proteins are required for DNA. Where did the first amino acids come from, and how did those amino acids get arranged into the double helix structure of DNA? There has to be mutations in the genetic code for natural selection. How did that happen before the code existed? Is that where you would insert god?

 

sure, if all that is meant by "god" is something we don't fully understand. To me it seems foolish to assume that a supernatural being must have been involved here just because we don't understand how it works...yet. If everyone took this attitude then we where do you think we would be? The problem with the god answer, at least as far as science goes, is that it doesn't explain anything, and thus is useless. Can we make a medicine to cure a illness with "god did it" no we can't...the simple answer, and the one the church seems bent on keeping people from hearing, is that countless discoveries in the world of biology and medicine have been made based upon evolution. The theory has explanatory power, which is why it continues to be used.

 

Creation "science" and intelligent design do not have explanatory power, nor can you make new discoveries, because in both cases the explanation for things that are not understood is "god did it" which stops exploration instead of encouraging it. Because once an explanation is found it no longer 'requires' god.

 

Also, I'm no expert here, but I believe RNA developed before DNA, and while DNA does create protein, it is thought that the amino acids formed by accident. This may seem unbelievable, but remember the basic building blocks of protein are bumping into on another billions of time every day in the ocean...thus it is actually quite likely that a protein could combine by accident

 

I just took a quick look at the GA. It looks like a good example of what we always see in the area of evolution in genetics. There are always limitations on genetic evolutionary changes. First of all, most mutations are lethal or harmful. Mutations that promote survival don't cause species to change into other species. The poor Drosophila fruit fly has been used for 80 years to demonstrate what happens with genetic changes. I worked with those pesky little things back in my genetics classes. The fruit fly, although genetically altered, always remained a fruit fly. These are examples of microevolution. Guys like Stephen Jay Gould had problems with gradualism. That's why they came up with punctuated equilibrium. Why? They had to account for the lack of transitional fossils and the Cambrian explosion. How do you account for the paleontological record? By the way, why are you arguing for theistic evolution when your position has always been "no god?"

 

micro and macro evolution are not terms used by scientists, it is a totally made up and fabricated difference...think about it..where is the magic line drawn that tells a species that it can change only SO much before it stops. Really, in my discussions with you I would have though you were too logical to fall prey to believing such a ridiculous proposition.

 

personally I don't there there is a strong need to account for lack of "transitional" fossils....first of all.. EVERY fossil is transitional. all species are in flux at all times. no matter if Gould was correct or not. 2nd, almost every animal decomposes when it dies...the fossils that exist are probably no more than 00.0001% of all the animals that ever lived. we are only seeing small snap shots over periods of millions of years. If you took a photo of me when I was 2 years old and another now, you probably wouldn't know I was the same person, but the transition is there anyway.

 

 

How does evolution account for irreducible complexity? For example, the flagellum of a bacterium. The strucure is rather complex with its arrangement of microtubules and other components. It is probably the most efficient motor in the universe. Without all of the parts together at the same time, the flagellum does not function. Can gradualism account for irreducible complexity?

 

First, the term "irreducible complexity" is used by proponents of intelligent design, Most ID'ers actually believe that evolution happened, but want to argue that cases of irreducible complexity prove that god, or something, had a hand in evolution. So ID is not an argument against evolution in any case, because most ID'ers admit there is good evidence to support evolutionary science.

 

However, ID is not good logic nor is it good science. First, it is bad logic because it is an argument from ignorance fallacy, to claim that god did something because no other current explanation is available is absurd. Logically, to prove an idea one must offer evidence for IT, disproving competing ideas does not make your idea win by default.

 

2nd it is bad science for the reasons I mentioned above. REAL science cannot flourish by assuming a theory with no explanatory power is true a-priori.

 

In fact, many things that were once considered cases of irreducible complexity have since found explanation...so just because no explanation exists doesn't mean there isn't one

[infotheorist]

Also, I'm no expert here, but I believe RNA developed before DNA, and while DNA does create protein, it is thought that the amino acids formed by accident. This may seem unbelievable, but remember the basic building blocks of protein are bumping into on another billions of time every day in the ocean...thus it is actually quite likely that a protein could combine by accident

Kuroikaze, be careful what you accuse me of. I am trying to be logical and account for what we do know. You are saying it is absurd to assert that God accounts for DNA, yet you are asking me to think it is logical for amino acids to bump into each other and form proteins. It is also possible for a tornado to tear through a junkyard of pieces and put together a car, but statistically it is not practical to think like that. We still have the question of where the amino acids came from. The same reason I assume intelligence whenever I see information is the same reason I assume intelligence when I see the information of DNA. I am sorry that accident is not compelling enough for me.

 

micro and macro evolution are not terms used by scientists, it is a totally made up and fabricated difference...think about it..where is the magic line drawn that tells a species that it can change only SO much before it stops. Really, in my discussions with you I would have though you were too logical to fall prey to believing such a ridiculous proposition.

Micro and macro evolution are terms used by science. Since it is so ridiculous, maybe you can provide some examples to show that there is no evidence of the limitations of microevolution. Are there examples, even if laboratory examples, of species becoming other species?

 

personally I don't there there is a strong need to account for lack of "transitional" fossils....first of all.. EVERY fossil is transitional. all species are in flux at all times. no matter if Gould was correct or not. 2nd, almost every animal decomposes when it dies...the fossils that exist are probably no more than 00.0001% of all the animals that ever lived. we are only seeing small snap shots over periods of millions of years. If you took a photo of me when I was 2 years old and another now, you probably wouldn't know I was the same person, but the transition is there anyway.

I hope you don't take offense, but I don't really care what you think personally. I am just accounting for the evidence. Again, my position from the beginning has been to work with what we do know, and work backwards, not with what we don't know. That's what forensic science is all about.

First, the term "irreducible complexity" is used by proponents of intelligent design, Most ID'ers actually believe that evolution happened, but want to argue that cases of irreducible complexity prove that god, or something, had a hand in evolution. So ID is not an argument against evolution in any case, because most ID'ers admit there is good evidence to support evolutionary science.

Does this answer account for things that are irreducibly complex, like the bacteral flagellum I mentioned?

 

However, ID is not good logic nor is it good science. First, it is bad logic because it is an argument from ignorance fallacy, to claim that god did something because no other current explanation is available is absurd. Logically, to prove an idea one must offer evidence for IT, disproving competing ideas does not make your idea win by default.

 

2nd it is bad science for the reasons I mentioned above. REAL science cannot flourish by assuming a theory with no explanatory power is true a-priori.

Where did I violate logic? Are you suggesting that accidental causes are not a violation of logic, but supernatural causes are a violation of logic? I guess I don't follow your logic.

[NotBlinded]

Where did I violate logic? Are you suggesting that accidental causes are not a violation of logic, but supernatural causes are a violation of logic? I guess I don't follow your logic.

Isn't there a happy medium such as natural causes? Oops...I jumped back to square one didn't I?

[Grandpa Harley]

Someone earlier made the assertion that 'free will' is limited by causality. This is true... events prior to now have an impact on the choices one makes but one is free to make the choices that are physically possible (that is don't violate physics), and that 'make sense' interms of what has gone before. All animals know to avoid coming into contact with fire, for example. Nothing stops them touching it, but it's their free will, based on experience, that they don't.

 

The problem is, interms of Judeao Christian thought, free will should be capitalised as 'Free Will' since it has a specific meaning... free will is just what you want to do, limited by experience and physics...

[Grandpa Harley]

addendum, there is very little that is wholly random in least enegergy systems too... but that's beacuse truely random behaviour is not least energy (the intergral over time>1 for truly random systems...)

[Kuroikaze]

Also, I'm no expert here, but I believe RNA developed before DNA, and while DNA does create protein, it is thought that the amino acids formed by accident. This may seem unbelievable, but remember the basic building blocks of protein are bumping into on another billions of time every day in the ocean...thus it is actually quite likely that a protein could combine by accident

Kuroikaze, be careful what you accuse me of. I am trying to be logical and account for what we do know. You are saying it is absurd to assert that God accounts for DNA, yet you are asking me to think it is logical for amino acids to bump into each other and form proteins. It is also possible for a tornado to tear through a junkyard of pieces and put together a car, but statistically it is not practical to think like that. We still have the question of where the amino acids came from. The same reason I assume intelligence whenever I see information is the same reason I assume intelligence when I see the information of DNA. I am sorry that accident is not compelling enough for me.

 

First, I didn't accuse you of anything is this statement, second, I know you think you are being logical about this, but you are pulling from the same tired analogies about tornado's in junk yards that creation "science" has been pulling from for the last 50 years. if you had bothered to read what I wrote you would see why it IS very statistically practical. If those basic building blocks only came into contact once, it would be impractical, but as I said they are coming into contact billions of time a day. Look at it this way, if the change is 1 trillion to 1 of it happening, that may seem insurmountable, but not if you realize how often it is happening, One of the problems with the tornado analogy is that you don't have one junk yard and one tornado, but millions of junk yards with billions of tornado riping through each one every hour.

 

micro and macro evolution are not terms used by scientists, it is a totally made up and fabricated difference...think about it..where is the magic line drawn that tells a species that it can change only SO much before it stops. Really, in my discussions with you I would have though you were too logical to fall prey to believing such a ridiculous proposition.

Micro and macro evolution are terms used by science. Since it is so ridiculous, maybe you can provide some examples to show that there is no evidence of the limitations of microevolution. Are there examples, even if laboratory examples, of species becoming other species?

 

ok, you are the one making a claim now, one that I see as erroneous, so provide me with an example of any "REAL" scientist...meaning some one who actually thinks evolution is true, talking about micro and macro evolution. I can't provide examples for something that isn't a real term, and looking for laboratory examples of major changes is absurd because major changes take far to long to observe in a short experiment.

 

 

personally I don't there there is a strong need to account for lack of "transitional" fossils....first of all.. EVERY fossil is transitional. all species are in flux at all times. no matter if Gould was correct or not. 2nd, almost every animal decomposes when it dies...the fossils that exist are probably no more than 00.0001% of all the animals that ever lived. we are only seeing small snap shots over periods of millions of years. If you took a photo of me when I was 2 years old and another now, you probably wouldn't know I was the same person, but the transition is there anyway.

I hope you don't take offense, but I don't really care what you think personally. I am just accounting for the evidence. Again, my position from the beginning has been to work with what we do know, and work backwards, not with what we don't know. That's what forensic science is all about.

 

yes, but you are asking for evidence that is unlikely to be there even if evolution is true...all the while ignoring many pieces of good evidence for evolution like pusdogenes and retro virus insertions.

 

Also forensic science is not the same thing as biology. It may have similarities but it isn't the same thing.

 

 

Does this answer account for things that are irreducibly complex, like the bacteral flagellum I mentioned?

 

I've explained fully why there is no need for ME to explain this, I'm not a scientist for one, and even if scientists don't have an explanation now, it doesn't mean that one cannot be found. no one said science is perfect. If you don't like that...tough cookies.

 

Where did I violate logic? Are you suggesting that accidental causes are not a violation of logic, but supernatural causes are a violation of logic? I guess I don't follow your logic.

 

"accident" might be the wrong word for me to use....but seriously did you read what I wrote? I explained the fallacy as well as I can, seriously, are you the same person I was talking to a few weeks ago, because its like your brain shut down?

 

and "accident" is still a real physical event that can be measured and observed via the empirical method, while supernatural cannot be...the point I'm making is not to say there is no God, but to say that God cannot be used as a scientific explanation, even if he does exist.

 

If you claim god did something it is the end of scientific thinking. If you are convinced otherwise then I have a challenge for you....name ONE major biological discovery made by a creation scientist in the last 50 years.

 

Also, read up on the argument from ignorance fallacy. part of the problem here is that you haven't presented one bit of evidence in favor of creation...you have only presented evidence against evolution. The fallacy occurs when you seem to think creation science wins by default simply because you have torn down evolution theory. Even if you managed to do that your argument would not win by default..thats is not the way deductive arguments work.

[Grandpa Harley]

Amino acids are found in clouds in deep space... analysis of interstellar 'dust' clouds show aminos, complex glycerides, and water in large quantites in space. Now, by my reckoning, the building blocks of life have been knocking around probably since the 5th or sixth generation stars died so there has been ~13 billion years for the formation of life chemicals by chance alone.

 

http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/damndata/i...f-Columbia.html (my theorising expanded a little)

 

http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/damndata/i...r-in-Space.html

 

http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/damndata/i...Space-Seed.html

 

Feel free to pick the bones out...