Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: peter vlar

In genetics there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution either. Given the phrases were first coined in 1927 (by Yuri Filipchenko, someone who had some problems with Darwin's ideas of natural selection) , the only people today who use the two terms as separate things are creationists. This is so they can weasel word around evidence for evolution with "oh well sure micro evolution happens but not macro evolution". If their deity did not want evolution to happen it would not happen period.

a reply to: peter vlar

Please, enlighten me with some examples then 

Ok

I don't define it because in Anthropology there is no distinction between micro and macro. They're the same process. 

If you can't explain it then it doesn't apply to you. That is making the science fit the theory .
Thanks for proving my point.

a reply to: Quadrivium

So you can't actually define it then? Sounds right.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I don't need to define a concept that doesn't exist within the field I studied and received my education. You're the one touting macro evolution as if it were actually something in science. I'm simply trying to understand what your points are as you have a penchant for using non standard nomenclature such as "class" and "type". I was merely attempting to engage in a civil dialogue with you and to do so, hoped to see what you were trying to convey with these terms. If you're unwilling to explain what you're attempting to convey, then why bother posting? The bottom line is that it's actually you who is attempting to make things fit into something that doesn't exist within any of the fields that are involved in the study of biological evolution, so no... I've not proven any point except that you make charges thst you're either unwilling or incapable of supporting.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
Your level of hypocrisy is hilarious... You call me out for mocking you and your lack of understanding of science and then claim that I have a perverse theology that teaches lies to children. And you expect people to have a friendly debate with you when this is your standard in every thread regarding evolution that you have posted in. I'm sorry, but you are willfully ignorant and would know a fact if it gave you a lap dance such is the degree of cognitive dissonance you suffer from.

If evolution is right and life is a meaningless accident then nothing matters, not even your opinion because all will end in nothingness anyway. So if you truly believed in evolution you wouldn't share your opinion with anyone. But, if there is a greater Truth to be realized in this life, then you are endangering their soul from realizing this Truth, and instead ensnare them in a net of material-reductionism. It was correctly said about your type:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law... You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are...You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

Great post. Remember it works both ways. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud.

Also remember, Coop, that science is pragmatic and is a construct of evidence. Your emotional outbursts simply point to the fact that you have no basis for your hypotheses. They're outdated and old news.

You're free to believe whatever you want. You're not free to perpetrate fraud. Fortunately, your efforts have produced very few converts. But it does look rather silly that you insist on denying the value of real evidence versus a madman's opinion which has zero credible data. It's all made up.

BTW, here's the source of your dinosaur bones. The "museum" has since shut down and the "curator" no where to be found!

www.dinosaurc14ages.com...

And just in case anyone wants a genuine dinosaur bone loaded with C14, soft tissue and other artifacts left behind by the humans who buried the poor thing, here's the place where you can purchase your own sample:

www.dinosaurc14ages.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
Your level of hypocrisy is hilarious... You call me out for mocking you and your lack of understanding of science and then claim that I have a perverse theology that teaches lies to children. And you expect people to have a friendly debate with you when this is your standard in every thread regarding evolution that you have posted in. I'm sorry, but you are willfully ignorant and would know a fact if it gave you a lap dance such is the degree of cognitive dissonance you suffer from.

If evolution is right and life is a meaningless accident then nothing matters, not even your opinion because all will end in nothingness anyway.

Then why are you so up in arms about it that you have to make it personal?

So if you truly believed in evolution you wouldn't share your opinion with anyone.

Why wouldn't I? I like for people to be able to see the facts and reach informed conclusions and I'm not incensed by people challenging me to support my perspective. I'm happy to share what I know and my worldview isn't shattered by someone challenging it provided they can support their own position with anything but lies, conjecture and hyperbole. You on the other hand won't support your position and resort To ad hominems

But, if there is a greater Truth to be realized in this life, then you are endangering their soul from realizing this Truth, and instead ensnare them in a net of material-reductionism.

By sharing facts that are testable, repeatable and observable I'm endangering souls? That's one of the craziest things I've seen in awhile so thanks for the chuckle

It was correctly said about your type:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law... You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are...You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

My type? Yet again, you have nothing to offer the conversation aside from ad hominem attacks on me. It's pretty pathetic. If you had a leg to stand on and were actually interested in a civil discussion, you would address the science and not make it a personal vendetta against me. But you don't have a clue what you're talking about and can't support your position with anything aside from bluster.

Do your precious theological inclinations rest on such shaky ground that science is really a threat to them? If so, you should rethink the tenets of that shaky faith. Evolution being a legitimate biological process does nothing to detract from anybody's faith. A large portion of people I studied under or worked with were religious. Francis Collins, former head off the Human Genome Project and proponent of the MES, is a Christian but unlike you, he is aware that facts don't detract from faith. Understanding the science behind evolution doesn't mean that there is no god or gods and to be incapable of reconciling those concepts shows what a closed minded person one is.

Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of god despite the fact that it was compiled by a committee of Roman aristocrats hundreds of years after Christ was crucified? Do you believe that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old? If so, you represent an insignificant percentage of Americans in general and only about 15% of American Christians. I couldn't find numbers for across the world but from what I've read the last few years, YEC is a largely American phenomenon. The point is though, that there is no reason why understanding science should be so offensive to you from a religious perspective. One has nothing to do with the other and can coexist just fine.

a reply to: peter vlar

They can't co exist with some Christians because "God" made man from Dust regardless of how long ago said event supposedly happened...

Evolution throws a major wrench in that theory because it takes time... instead of a flick of the wrist

a reply to: Akragon

Oh I agree. They're a minuscule minority of Christians though, even in America where there are far more proponents of YEC than any other country that I've travelled to, including heavily Catholic Central America and Mexico. People in other countries seem to think that most Americans have that view and are relieved when I tell them that YEC's bark is much worse than it's bite.

a reply to: peter vlar

LOL... YEC's don't even have teeth to bite with, they just gum your leg a bit

I haven't traveled outside of Canada but from my experiences Catholics are rarely YEC... seems to be the protestants mostly... I've heard that its almost exclusively a western thing, which would make sense considering the west was colonized by protestant hordes

originally posted by: peter vlar
If you had a leg to stand on and were actually interested in a civil discussion, you would address the science and not make it a personal vendetta against me.

I did get a bit out of line, but it was only to emphasize the importance of human origins, and how a distorted view of our past can lead to a distorted life.

The greatest evidence for a consciousness-based creation model comes from quantum physics. Their experimentation demonstrated that we as conscious observers are integral to the working of the universe. They went so far as to say matter exists in a probabilistic waveform until observed by an observer - see Schroedinger's Cat or the double slit experiment. The big names in this field came to a congruent understanding and released it as the Copenhagen interpretation which insists that physical systems do not have definite properties until they are observed.

This puts us as conscious observers at the center of creation and the purpose of physical law.

a reply to: peter vlar

I think they are up in arms as they are still appalled that they are related to apes. I mean if anyone should be appalled it is the apes!

It is a shame that a tiny minority of Christians, make the rest of them look like muppets (and not the cute ones).

a reply to: Akragon

I've traveled much of the world (I've been on every continent, and a lot of the islands, mostly due to work, I've even been to Antarctica during my Bachelors to help collect some Lichen samples for a Plant Extracts Research group) I've lived in the USA and New Zealand for extended periods. Catholics (who the Creationist crowd often say are not Christians.... *eye roll*) can have some sill ideas, but yes I've only met a couple of YEC Catholics, and not any Clergy. IF anyone wonders, I used to be (as a Pagan) part of interfaith groups, and have been to a Parliament of World Religions. Sadly its the Protestants who have most of the YEC members in their deck.

a reply to: cooperton

Which would make US the Gods, not some random man in the sky, or gang of Indo-European spirits

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
If you had a leg to stand on and were actually interested in a civil discussion, you would address the science and not make it a personal vendetta against me.

I did get a bit out of line, but it was only to emphasize the importance of human origins, and how a distorted view of our past can lead to a distorted life.

Fair enough and for what it's worth, I appreciate the sentiment.

The greatest evidence for a consciousness-based creation model comes from quantum physics. Their experimentation demonstrated that we as conscious observers are integral to the working of the universe. They went so far as to say matter exists in a probabilistic waveform until observed by an observer - see Schroedinger's Cat or the double slit experiment. The big names in this field came to a congruent understanding and released it as the Copenhagen interpretation which insists that physical systems do not have definite properties until they are observed.

This puts us as conscious observers at the center of creation and the purpose of physical law.

And none of that invalidates evolution as a biological process, nor does it confirm that the god of Abraham created the universe as depicted in Hebrew scripture. I was hoping to actually discuss the evidence that supports the MES not engage in a debate about theoretical physics. Please feel free to address my prior questions posed to you or provide supporting data that you believe falsifies the MES. This is merely sidestepping the real issue with a strawman that has nothing to do with biological evolution. I'm always happy to discuss the evidence regarding evolution if you care to do so.

a reply to: cooperton

This puts us as conscious observers at the center of creation and the purpose of physical law.

That statement gives the same weight to the consciousness of other creatures like the great apes. If that's the case, the logic would be that the great apes as well as all creatures on Earth have commonality. This is exactly what MES is about - the synthesis of all fields of knowledge into a unified description of life as we know it. It makes sense. The evidence is self-explanatory. The research continues, but the fundamental joining of Darwinian theory and Mendelian genetics has been shown to be true.

That said, in no way does it support the idea that consciousness is required to create a universe. The double split experiment says that PARTICLES (not humans, buses, cars or hotels) exist in superposition or a mixed state. It is a quantum experiment not an experiment in classical mechanics. This is the great "Measurement Problem". Observation results in the collapse of the wave function. Your car doesn't disappear when you don't look at it. Your reality is not unique to you. I think solipsism has been laid to rest.

As Einstein said (paraphrasing), "The moon is there whether I look at it or not".

QM is a mathematical theory of the behavior of small particles. How QM interfaces with consciousness is not known, if it connects at all.

In any case, the connection you've made between consciousness and the creation of the universe simply doesn't hold, notwithstanding how you interpret what the "big boys" said.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

In genetics there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution either. Given the phrases were first coined in 1927 (by Yuri Filipchenko, someone who had some problems with Darwin's ideas of natural selection) , the only people today who use the two terms as separate things are creationists. This is so they can weasel word around evidence for evolution with "oh well sure micro evolution happens but not macro evolution". If their deity did not want evolution to happen it would not happen period.

Not only "Creationist" use it. It is actually a term used my many scientists. You can't discuss the issue. All you seem to do is talk about gods.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Except, it is used in the manner that "if you zoom out you see a macro view and if you zoom in you see a micro view". Not the creationist "they are different". Why? Because just like gravity is gravity no matter where you look, evolution remains evolution no matter what. It happens.

So again, where is your proof of intelligent design.... uh I mean Irreducible complexity again?

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter,
With your background in paleoanthropology with specific focus on Pleistocene hominids do you agree with evolution that humanoids evolved from monkeys, monkeys from a shrew/mouse like varmint and those possibly from a lizard if some sort?
That is macroevolution. It has not been observed and there is little to no substantial evidence for it, in the fossil record or elsewhere.
Macro evolution refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations. Which we have not observed.
How many years have they run the "evolution test" on bacteria? You can get a new generation of bacteria, what, every 15 minutes or so? And according to some "evolutionists" mutations happen faster in smaller organisms. Still, no proof. No new information added.

Look at the lenski experiment. Over 60,000 generations and the only "positive" mutation was due to existing information being rearranged.