ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4183
Latest Activity: on Sunday

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

explanation for reality Theism or Atheism?

Started by dudaboli yev. Last reply by Joseph P on Friday. 5 Replies

Fossils illustrate evolution of life

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jul 27. 1 Reply

On Abolishing Religion

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jul 16. 69 Replies

Researchers Say There Might be Life After Death

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Jul 15. 56 Replies

On the scientific miracles of Qur'an

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Daniel Gotro Jun 26. 25 Replies

Modern Humans Interbred with Neanderthals in Europe

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jun 25. 3 Replies

DNA Links Kennewick Man to Native Americans

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Jun 20. 11 Replies

Evolution is a FACT, not a theory.

Started by Idaho Spud. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jun 14. 26 Replies

The new website called 'Grand Ideas'.

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 11. 2 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 15, 2015 at 6:09pm

I like the objection but I feel it only works up to a point. A creationist could (probably never would but...) say "Yes from my position everything is designed, luckily I'm not trying to convince me. The thought experiment is entirely for your benefit, and I am judging that you would find a watch too complex to not have been designed. Once the idea that something can be 'too complex to not have been designed' is established I can then refer you to the complexity of the universe..."
Of course the counter is, if complexity necessarily infers design, then "the designer" in turn would need to be designed, and "the designer's designer" ad infinitum, and if you're going to claim that "the designer" isn't designed you need to provide a reason why the loophole it slips though can't be applied to the universe (or I guess a watch ;) ).

Comment by Joseph P on February 15, 2015 at 8:33am

That's why I've been reacting how I have been, lately, Quinton.  He has no papers, published or not, which even come close to outlining his proposed alternate model.  Hell, he doesn't even have any writing which clearly outlines his objections, just badly mangled metaphors and emotional appeals to eugenics and supernaturalism.  He has no experimental data.

For a supposedly science-oriented atheist, he doesn't understand the first thing about the scientific method.  I think it's fair to categorize him more as a science fetishist, with a method similar to a 9/11 Truther or a Christian apologist.  That's why I initially thought he was one of the stealth theists that we occasionally get on the site, when he first showed up.

I don't know how he expects anyone to take this shit seriously.

On your other subject: one of the best responses I've heard to the watchmaker argument is pretty concise, actually.  If someone literally starts telling the watch-found-on-the-forest-path narrative, as I've seen many creationists do, there's a simple objection.

You think that we're looking at a watch, which you found lying in a field of watches.  You think that everything is designed.  How did you determine that the watch is designed, when you claim that everything in the universe is designed?  What's your undesigned point of reference?

It's so bad that I've taken to making the watchmaker argument for the creationists, if they make some other construction of an argument from design, since the matchmaker argument more clearly demonstrates why what they're engaging in is so silly.

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 15, 2015 at 4:12am

In the meantime some fun evo stuff. I teaching tool
http://www.biologyinmotion.com/evol/index.html

And a reply to the "if you found a watch lying on the ground" argument used by ID proponents (I love this one!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 15, 2015 at 4:06am

I think it is more that he is projecting himself as an authority in an area where he is at best an interested amateur (I would also be an interested amateur) while disregarding the weight of skill and knowledge of those who actually have legitimate authority in the subject. This is what I meant I told him that his tone comes across as arrogant. I don't think his point can't be disproven. At the same time I understand with all the exasperated comments I see it might be a fool's errand. Possibly thinking that I can point out to him what no one else has managed to (especially when I can see they know much more about evolutionary biology than me e.g. Joseph P), I am being a bit arrogant myself.

Comment by Lemual Poot on February 15, 2015 at 2:27am

  

I just don't see the point in hypothesizing for the sake of hypothesizing.  I have a term I call: "Jailhouse genius."  A jailhouse genius is someone who's professing knowledge and arguing about a subject that has no relevance and can't be proven or disproven at that point in time.

A theist says, “I believe because I believe.”  A scientist says, “I believe because…” and cites laws, facts, and figures.  That bozo may think he’s appeasing the first by emulating the second but he’s actually “none of the above.”

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 14, 2015 at 12:28pm

I don't think anyone sees it as disloyal, but your tone does come across as arrogant, this is what makes people angry with you.

Maybe it's worth simplifying things. Let's imagine a self-replicating organism, whenever this organism eats 1x it creates another of itself, after replicating 10 times it dies.
Let's start with 1.
To begin with it consumes and replicates 10 times giving us 10.
7 are just like their parent.
1 has a mutation that means it needs to eat 2x to reproduce.
1 has a mutation that slows down the rate at which they can consume to half the speed.
1 has a mutation that means that they only need 0.5x to reproduce.
With every 10 reproductions that a single organism creates this pattern continues.
Over time does the average rate of reproduction of the organism increase or decrease? What happens when we say there is a limited amount of x available in any given cycle? What happens when we introduce predators?

You say you think your Fisher review is clear, but it needs to be clear to other people or it's pointless. I gave my response to it previously, I thought it was mistaken.

Comment by Shaun Johnston on February 14, 2015 at 9:22am

Quinton, I appreciate your close reading in this thread. I am pursuing two lines of argument at once, that I keep separate but you've brought together. Of course that's confusing. Summary, I'm a science - oriented atheist, who suspects the modern synthesis is faulty, the fault originating in Fisher's statistics. At the same time I am exploring other ways of thinking about evolution, such as my 'genies.' I recommend keeping them separate, because free speculation can't be defended as criticism of statistics can be. I think my Fisher review is clear. He doesn't include consideration, in his statistics, of the much greater number of harmful mutations. This is a statistical gaffe, I think. By the way, he thinks there are no neutral muations, because natural selection is so sensitive all mutations will register.
Some people think it's disloyal to question tthe basis for the modern syntheses. I think it's ok. What do you think?

Comment by Shaun Johnston on February 14, 2015 at 8:58am

Quinton, I appreciate that you reproduced my ideas accurately. We differ about the potency of different populations of mutations, and so arrive at different conclusions. 

Comment by Quinton Llewellyn on February 14, 2015 at 6:21am

Yeah he doesn't seem to give you a straight answer, maybe he thinks he is, but having looked through that whole dialogue I understand your frustration. It can come across much like Bill O'Reilly's "How do waves happen?" or The Insane Clown Posse's "Magnets, how do they work?" but I don't think he thinks natural selection is supernatural, I think he thinks it has a problem that can't be explained so the supernatural thing is done with a sarcastic voice "so how does that work unless you're invoking 'then something magic happens' to the middle of your argument?", he does in one reply say "I am accusing modern evolutionary theory of resorting to supernatural explanations.".
The idea he has is that if a mutation arises that hinders the organism but doesn't kill it or necessarily stop it from reproducing then it will be passed on (and for arguments sake let's always consider it as a dominate trait), lets say it slightly weaker knees. He then muses that thrown out at random there has to be many more mutations that will hinder you than help you (a long the lines of 'there is 100 ways to get this wrong, only 1 way to get it right') and so a beneficial mutation amongst mutations will be relatively a rarity. He concludes that if this is true, over time the resulting organism will be so weighed down by the mutations that hinder it that for whatever the benefits it gains from mutations that have happened in it's ancestry that favour survival and reproduction, they will do little to overcome the accumulation of the vastly more mutations that challenge it. He has clearly made a number of errors. The important error seems to me to be this, he discounts the range of organisms that are products of their parents traits (or combined traits) with the claim that it is only the exceptions that make a difference (he says "Only beneficial and harmful variations are relevant to how mutations induce the action of natural selection."). The problem with this is that the group he considers irrelevant is the largest group in pool that the organisms are fighting in, those with traits from these "harmful mutations" that lessen the organism's chances of survival and reproduction for the most part do so in relation to this group. Everything taken into account the mutations he talks about as being either "harmful" or "beneficial" are themselves the rarity in relation to the whole and so can easily be adopted or wiped out. By excluding anything but his "harmful and beneficial mutations" he is left with a group that might look likely to snowball into chaos. This I think is where his main mistake lies.
To me what would get my back up about how he has gone about this whole thing is that he has assumed that he has found a problem and proclaims it to be a problem without any sense of humility. If he had approached this by saying there was something he didn't get about natural selection and could anyone explain it to him he would of had a completely different conversation, but just assuming that he has found out something that no evolutionary biologist had noticed and attacking natural selection like he did was a bit of a dick move.

Comment by Lemual Poot on February 14, 2015 at 3:16am

Anyone who says the fact of evolution is unsound should take a look at the National Geographic enlarged photos of houseflies walking unharmed, on pure DDT crystals.

Or how about the "Devil's Lapdog."  Tea baggers and other fundamentalists should enjoy this one:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1182551/Coming-town-...

 I also read about a strain of rats in NYC that can create massive doses of vitamin K, the antidote to anticoagulant poisons.  They can be either Asian gray, or Norway brown, and they are not only able to eat Warfarin and other such poisons without problem, they can thrive on what it's mixed with to get the rats to eat it.  It's estimated that more than half NYC's rats have evolved resistance to the only rat poison currently legal for use in New York.

 Maybe their god is working on his new favorite species - rats!

Yeah, that's it; that's why he hasn't done too much to impress his people lately; he's moved on!

If you think about it, those idiots are just cutting nose to spite face.  If they worked it right, evolution could easily be spun as a greater proof of their "higher power" fable.  "Not only did "HE" create all things interactive with one another, his creatures have the ability to become whatever they need to be in order for their species to survive!"

 I can just hear Reverend Billy Sol Harkus, first church of the gooey death and discount house of worship, Del Rio Texas, gold buckle of the bible belt, (Imus circa 1975) as he belts it out over the airways.  They almost lost their shit by convicting Galileo, they may just topple over this one.

 

Members (4183)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service