It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 50
16
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Platonists propose that abstract objects are eternal, whereas Traditional Theists believe that God alone is eternal. With these contrasts in mind, we turn now to consider specific problems said to emerge from them.



You are putting words into my mouth. I said Plato used mathematics to demonstrate absolute truth which is true. Higher in important than mathematics is Plato's world of Forms, the heavenly ideal which our world was originally created to resemble (see Plato's Timaeus). You are backtracking and now acting like an expert just because you did some quick googling? You have to admit when you're wrong or you will begin to enter into a psychosis.


The equation e=mc^2 is part of a theory, called the Theory of Special Relativity.


Law: "a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present."

Special Relativity is a Theory, based on e=mc2 which is a scientifically proven fact through repeated experiment:

"By measuring relativistic corrections to the Keplerian description of the orbital motion, we find that the "post-Keplerian" parameter s agrees with the value predicted by general relativity within an uncertainty of 0.05%, the most precise test yet obtained."
e=mc2 proven-2

"Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests... it holds to a level of at least 0.00004% certainty. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous e=mc2 equation yet described."
e=mc2 proven

These proofs are based in mathematical calculation discussion, whereas evolution can only live in semantic ambiguity.
edit on 20-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you give up already.

^You lost the dinosaur bone argument
^You lost the C14 argument
^You lost the Plato argument
^You lost the e=mc2 argument

I know that you're desperate to get validation for your work, but from my point of view, and from the point of view of any professional scientist, it just isn't going to happen. Pick another topic. And this time, get some quality books and do some real research before you start writing.


Regardless of anyone being right or wrong, this is the most pompous thing I have ever read. The extent of the research for you "winning" the argument of Plato or e=mc2 was you doing some quick cursory googling that backed you into a dead end. Trying to be right all the time is not worth your sanity.
edit on 20-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You're entitled to your opinion. As for the rest of the rant, it's about time you step off that bully pulpit. Your acolytes might be impressed, but anyone on this board with a background in science is left unimpressed.

Come back when you're equipped to challenge the data - the real data in the literature. To date, you have never challenged a single paper or opinion based on recognized research. And that's because you can't discuss the data. You simply don't know how. You can't say whether you agree, disagree or have no opinion on the methodologies and results. Because you simply don't know how.

That's why I said, come back when you're equipped to challenge the mountains of evidence that validate evolution as the best theory which fits observational evidence. Again, you simply can't do that because you don't know how.

Get some books, listen to some lectures, read the research and come back with an honest presentation as to why over 500 journals and thousands of research articles are wrong. Unless you can do that, you're just pissing in the wind.




posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Can you admit that you were wrong and Plato did in fact use mathematical proofs? Just to prove you aren't too stubborn to discourse with.

Then yes, send me an article and we will discuss whether or not they are making extrapolations. We can go one at a time.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423

Can you admit that you were wrong and Plato did in fact use mathematical proofs? Just to prove you aren't too stubborn to discourse with.

Then yes, send me an article and we will discuss whether or not they are making extrapolations. We can go one at a time.


I asked you to post the algorithm. You haven't. Therefore there is no algorithm.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You've been copy pasting that same argument for years. Try coming up with something new and isn't exclusively based on propaganda and long winded tirades. It's super dishonest.
edit on 11 20 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Plato's argument was... not mathematical. Look it up.



Just admit this is an incorrect statement. He used mathematical logic to prove his argument in Meno

Here is thealgorithm you are erroneously asking for:
Length of the sides of squares - from Meno

Can you admit you were wrong or is that impossible?
edit on 20-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I said that above - he used a geometry problem to explain something to Meno. He DID NOT write any mathematical formulation which proves that there is a God.

This is a series of geometrical figures. This is NOT an algorithm.



The boy came up with the answer after coaching from Socrates. He DID NOT have an innate knowledge of geometry. He had to either think it through himself or learn it from someone else. The ability to solve a problem does not mean it is necessarily an innate talent. It only means that the person either figured it out for himself (some geniuses can do that) or that he was taught either partially or in full how to solve the problem - i.e. a math book (what a concept).

You have purposefully misconstrued the entire story to fit your opinion. If what you said were true, everyone would be a math genius because it would be a built-in ability of all humans. All you have to do is look at the math grades in public schools to know that this is not the case!


edit on 20-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Once again, your ridiculous reply has a lot of words but doesn't say a damned thing! You can claim I'm a liar all you want but the only way to believe that your statements are true is to divorce yourself from reality. You are constantly quote mining and you are constantly neglecting to provide citations or use external tags for your quoted material per ATS T&C and instead of actually providing citations aside from videos that aren't a citation by the way, you back load a bunch of scripture from your own magical version of the Bible that didn't exist until 1950.

If you had a clue, you would falsify the data instead of Gish Galloping your way around it. But you don't because you have nothing, you can't use your own words and you copy and paste bull s# from JW websites. You. Have. Nothing. To. Being. To. The. Table. Nothing. Please, prove me wrong and actually falsify the science. For someone of your magnitude of arrogance it should be simple right?

Don't worry... I don't expect you to do anything but dance around the issue and make claims that have no basis in reality because the bottom line is that you are a willfully ignorant person who has no desire to know the truth. If you did, you would discuss facts not post scripture and run the copy paste route. Is that a copyright infringement or is it allowed as long as your tithing is up to date?


edit on 20-11-2017 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

evidence = the universe exists, thus it was created


According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, since something exists, that something must have always existed. That is what the philosophers, the lovers of knowledge, call the Alpha-Omega, the Being that always was and always shall be.


originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic
At least Cooperton admits he's using the same copy and paste crap from his favorite YEC websites.


I said the opposite of that. I came to my conclusions through logical reasoning, and it so happens that others have come to the same conclusions. Rational discourse is what brought me to a Spirit-based origins model.


Oh my apologies then. The fact remains that you are in fact copying and pasting from those sites. You know it and anyone who has participated in these threads knows it. I find it very hard to believe that you have on your own, come up with the exact word for word commentary posted on AIG and ICR. Are you really trying to say that you don't source any of your commentary from those or related sites? Don't lie, gods watching you!



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

BTW, this is what an algorithm looks like:



This is an algorithm in mathematical form:



Plato did NONE OF THIS.


And it looks like Plat would have been in full harmony with genetics and evolution.



PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Jun 24;6(6):e1000828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000828. Plato's cave algorithm: inferring functional signaling networks from early gene expression shadows. Shimoni Y1, Fink MY, Choi SG, Sealfon SC. Author information Abstract Improving the ability to reverse engineer biochemical networks is a major goal of systems biology. Lesions in signaling networks lead to alterations in gene expression, which in principle should allow network reconstruction. However, the information about the activity levels of signaling proteins conveyed in overall gene expression is limited by the complexity of gene expression dynamics and of regulatory network topology. Two observations provide the basis for overcoming this limitation: a. genes induced without de-novo protein synthesis (early genes) show a linear accumulation of product in the first hour after the change in the cell's state; b. The signaling components in the network largely function in the linear range of their stimulus-response curves. Therefore, unlike most genes or most time points, expression profiles of early genes at an early time point provide direct biochemical assays that represent the activity levels of upstream signaling components. Such expression data provide the basis for an efficient algorithm (Plato's Cave algorithm; PLACA) to reverse engineer functional signaling networks. Unlike conventional reverse engineering algorithms that use steady state values, PLACA uses stimulated early gene expression measurements associated with systematic perturbations of signaling components, without measuring the signaling components themselves. Besides the reverse engineered network, PLACA also identifies the genes detecting the functional interaction, thereby facilitating validation of the predicted functional network. Using simulated datasets, the algorithm is shown to be robust to experimental noise. Using experimental data obtained from gonadotropes, PLACA reverse engineered the interaction network of six perturbed signaling components. The network recapitulated many known interactions and identified novel functional interactions that were validated by further experiment. PLACA uses the results of experiments that are feasible for any signaling network to predict the functional topology of the network and to identify novel relationships. PMID: 20585619 PMCID: PMC2891706 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000828 [Indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+

edit on 20-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You know it's easy to see your frustration. You tried and failed as a scientist. You tried to publish and did but your work was never accepted. Now you're taking it out on everyone else with lopsided arguments which have no validity.

You want to be a scientist? Then do what the rest of us have done - do the hard work. Formulate your opinions and defend them. Correct your mistakes. Publish your work. Let your work be repeated and verified.
You people DO NONE OF THIS!!!

And you think you're frustrated?? I usually need martini after chatting with you. However, it's too early. Then again, maybe not.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


This is a series of geometrical figures. This is NOT an algorithm.



Ugh, algorithms are a sequence of rules and calculations which is exactly what that diagram is. You literally cannot admit you are wrong. You don't belong in any sort of logical discussion


originally posted by: peter vlar

Oh my apologies then. The fact remains that you are in fact copying and pasting from those sites. You know it and anyone who has participated in these threads knows it. I find it very hard to believe that you have on your own, come up with the exact word for word commentary posted on AIG and ICR. Are you really trying to say that you don't source any of your commentary from those or related sites? Don't lie, gods watching you!


And you get your information from a theoretical cult that doesn't allow any dissidents. I've been in it. I left for that reason. The scientific community is a self-aggrandizing beast and tramples over empirical evidence in order to suit its preferred dogma. If you only knew the free world of coming to your own conclusions from empirical evidence. It's such a shame that evolution programming starts at the preschool level, otherwise we might have more free thinkers.

You all are so afraid of logical deduction because it might upset your precious belief system. You all toot your own horn and say its proof that your own tooting is true. It's circular logic. Of course all those research articles are going to believe in evolution, what would you expect from an evolutionist journal??

I have yet to see any of you come to an understanding and serious rebuttal of irreducible complexity...



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Ugh, algorithms are a sequence of rules and calculations which is exactly what that diagram is. You literally cannot admit you are wrong. You don't belong in any sort of logical discussion


So write it out then. Define the inputs, the sequence, the formula and the output. Then translate it into a mathematical function for solving the problem.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You know it's easy to see your frustration. You tried and failed as a scientist. You tried to publish and did but your work was never accepted. Now you're taking it out on everyone else with lopsided arguments which have no validity.


There is great danger in publishing any work prior to having a complete understanding of the Truth. If you don't fully understand what is going on you are likely to publish misleading things. I have publications but I have removed my egotistical attachment to them as best as possible.



You want to be a scientist? Then do what the rest of us have done - do the hard work. Formulate your opinions and defend them. Correct your mistakes. Publish your work. Let your work be repeated and verified.
You people DO NONE OF THIS!!!


I work under purposeful anonymity so I can fully analyze the devil's advocate against my ideas. I search for those who can challenge ideas in ways that I would have never expected. It has been a frustrating yet beneficial debate with all of you. There have been times when you all have brought up novel ideas, and other times where you regurgitate the errant dogma with blind faith. Christians and the like must also watch that we don't fall under the error of blind belief, because that is what tainted the name in the first place.




And you think you're frustrated?? I usually need martini after chatting with you. However, it's too early. Then again, maybe not.



I would honestly like to have a drink with you, and the others, one day and put a face to all these back-and-forths we've had on this forum



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No one objects to novel ideas. It's just that we have to abide by the rules of the games simply because if you don't, you're at tremendous risk of someone flattening your work. Someone will figure out that you didn't test your data sufficiently. It's inevitable. Imagine you're in the drug business. The testing and retesting had better be right.

Anyway, we'll all have a drink together one day and come up with the Holy Grail. I just know in the real world of science, you can get beaten up very fast if you're not careful. That doesn't rule out new ideas. It's okay to be wrong about something - happens all the time. But following the protocol gives the project credibility, regardless of outcome.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


This is a series of geometrical figures. This is NOT an algorithm.





originally posted by: peter vlar

Oh my apologies then. The fact remains that you are in fact copying and pasting from those sites. You know it and anyone who has participated in these threads knows it. I find it very hard to believe that you have on your own, come up with the exact word for word commentary posted on AIG and ICR. Are you really trying to say that you don't source any of your commentary from those or related sites? Don't lie, gods watching you!


And you get your information from a theoretical cult that doesn't allow any dissidents.


I think the word you were looking for is dissent. And no, I don't get my information form any cults, theoretical or otherwise. My knowledge comes from working digs in the field, working in the lab and doing research and then having to defend it against others.

Is that an admission that yes, you do indeed copy and paste from those sources? You keep tip toeing around actually answering the question. I wonder why?


I've been in it. I left for that reason. The scientific community is a self-aggrandizing beast and tramples over empirical evidence in order to suit its preferred dogma.


If you really believe that then you've never worked in science or gone to grad school for anything science related.


If you only knew the free world of coming to your own conclusions from empirical evidence.


I know it all too well, I've been doing it for years. Unlike you, I follow the evidence instead of only focusing on things that suit my confirmation biases and ignoring everything else that conflicts with it. There's no freedom in that because you've eliminated the possibility of being incorrect whereas I embrace it because being wrong lets me eliminate a possibility and focus on new directions because I know where or what I was missing. The scientific method is a great tool. You just need to use it.


It's such a shame that evolution programming starts at the preschool level, otherwise we might have more free thinkers.


That's hilarious considering religious indoctrination begins at birth when children are baptized without their permission and forced to attend a church of their parents choosing. Where exactly is the free will in that? Sorry, but the opposite of what you state is true. Religion leashes and shackles young minds, teaching children about the scientific method gives them the tools to understand the world around them and think critically for themselves. Religious teaching stifles critical thinking. There is no freedom under the shackles of religion. Especially ridiculous world views like YEC.


You all are so afraid of logical deduction because it might upset your precious belief system.


Not even close. I've bucked the system for over 20 years. I'm not afraid to challenge paradigms. I never bought into Clovis first and I was an early proponent of Pleistocene admixture events long before the majority of Paleoanthropologists considered it possible. I was openly derided for my views in the mid to late 90's. What was speculative over 20 years ago is factual today because the technology has advanced enough to do the testing thst I couldn't accomplish then. So please, get off your high horse built on a mountain of assumptions that have no merit.



You all toot your own horn and say its proof that your own tooting is true. It's circular logic.


No, circular logic is believing that complexity can only be created by design and "biology is really complex". So that must then mean that; "biology was created by design". Which is the crux of Behe's argument in favor of irreducible complexity. It's a fallacy called begging the question and is itself a massive exercise in circular logic. I think it also says a lot that Behe himself has redefined irreducible complexity several times since first publishing in 1996. He's moving the goal posts and that's not the hallmark of a solid argument.


Of course all those research articles are going to believe in evolution, what would you expect from an evolutionist journal??


There's no such thing as an evolutionist journal. There are only science journals. If creationists had any valid science, they would be published. Yet they aren't. Wonder why that is? I'll give you a hint... It isn't because people are afraid of what they say. It's because they have nothing that can be independently reproduced and they know this is true. They have nothing to offer except an appeal to authority that the average joe who doesn't understand science at all thinks sounds reasonable to him.


I have yet to see any of you come to an understanding and serious rebuttal of irreducible complexity...


Let's look at a quote from Behe explaining Irreducible Complexity

“”...composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Behe never goes on to attempt to define "several" as a meaningful number. This gives intelligent design a crucial lack of falsifiability. How is that either rational or scientific? It gives your magical creators infinite room to declare any number of things that don't currently an evolutionary explanation, "irreducibly complex", while at the same time denying the applicability to other structures with a known evolutionary history.

It's sheer lunacy and not evidence of anything, it's merely incredulity regarding mutations occurring through natural processes. Behe didn't arrive at his conclusions through scientific study. He formed his opinions based on his religious proclivities and reverse engineered an argument to fit it and then used some science words to try to lend credence to it.

It's no more logical than the watch on the beach fallacy. You know... You find a watch on the beach, did it occur there naturally or was it created? It obviously must be created right? Except that a watch doesn't reproduce on it's own or have mutations so the entire exercise is bull s#

You guys are notorious for using the eye as an example despite simple explanations and the known history of the eye being traced all the way back to the earliest photosynthetic organisms. They make ludicrous statements like "what good is half an eye?" while ignoring the fact that this isn't how eyes developed or understanding that if they had a choice between being completely blind and having only half the vision they have now, they're going to choose half vision every single time and you know it. There are a host of organisms that survive just fine with less advanced vision than mammals or birds or reptiles etc... Like polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark,the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement, the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the mollusks and vertebrates.

Should I go on?



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

No one objects to novel ideas. It's just that we have to abide by the rules of the games simply because if you don't, you're at tremendous risk of someone flattening your work. Someone will figure out that you didn't test your data sufficiently. It's inevitable. Imagine you're in the drug business. The testing and retesting had better be right.


Unless, of course, you have enough money involved, then the drugs don't need to be right. Many fields of science are corrupt by motives for obtaining grants, profits, politics, etc.



Anyway, we'll all have a drink together one day and come up with the Holy Grail. I just know in the real world of science, you can get beaten up very fast if you're not careful. That doesn't rule out new ideas. It's okay to be wrong about something - happens all the time. But following the protocol gives the project credibility, regardless of outcome.


Cheers, I'm in the northeast US, by context I think you're in the UK? So coming to a peaceful compromise in person may be a ways away


originally posted by: peter vlar

I think the word you were looking for is dissent.


I choose my words carefully when I have the time. A dissident is "someone who opposes official policy from an authoritarian state", which fits the context well.



And no, I don't get my information form any cults, theoretical or otherwise. My knowledge comes from working digs in the field, working in the lab and doing research and then having to defend it against others.


I don't ask this sarcastically, have you or your team found any unequivocal evidence reinforcing the notion of evolution?



Is that an admission that yes, you do indeed copy and paste from those sources? You keep tip toeing around actually answering the question. I wonder why?


I have read some of their content. Most of it comes from googling ideas that come to my head - i.e. "wtf were dragons and why do they match descriptions of dinosaurs" you'll get either creationists claiming they were dinosaurs perceived by humans, or evolutionists saying that's ridiculous that can't be true.



If you really believe that then you've never worked in science or gone to grad school for anything science related.


The focus of study is great, but can lead to tunnel vision. I at one point refused any evidence that strayed from evolutionary theory. As much as you may think I only intake Christian "propaganda", I do make my best efforts to remain unbiased at the face of evidence.



That's hilarious considering religious indoctrination begins at birth when children are baptized without their permission and forced to attend a church of their parents choosing.


Dude, don't get me started. I have evolutionists telling me i'm a retarded creationist, and I have Christians telling me I'm out of touch with reality when I quote the words of Jesus. "God is good, but he's not that good", is the mentally often exhibited by Christians. We should be moving mountains and healing the sick, but that is not happening, so obviously no one is actually living the Christ lifestyle. As Paul said, all men are liars and God is True.



Where exactly is the free will in that? Sorry, but the opposite of what you state is true. Religion leashes and shackles young minds, teaching children


At it's most base level it is a moral compass, which is beneficial to children. But the hypocrisy they see from their teachers (I speak from my childhood experience) ultimately renders them a half-believer or a full-blown atheist. Catholic school was a one-way ticket to atheism for me. Free thought brought me to agnosticism, and then actually reading the words of Jesus in a new context was eye opening. Syncretism is an interesting field where the prophets from all religions are compared for common teachings. The Good news is greater than anyone on earth currently knows, and although origins are important to know, it is much worse if it causes disparity among the various temples of God (you and I, etc).

A peace offering is needed after some exhausting logical discourse

edit on 20-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I didn't know Jellyfish, scallops, or mollusks had eyes.

Fascinating!



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

This gives intelligent design a crucial lack of falsifiability. How is that either rational or scientific?


Evolution has the same ghastly nature. Because it is a dynamic theory that is always assumed to be true, the goalposts are constantly moved depending on new evidence. for example, soft tissue was found in dinosaurs - because the science elites can't consider the possibility of a younger earth, they had to move the goalposts and say "oh nvm I guess soft tissue can be preserved longer than we thought. Evolution's Achilles' heel is time, which is why anything indicating that the earth is younger than millions of years old is anathema, and outright refused.



You guys are notorious for using the eye as an example despite simple explanations and the known history of the eye being traced all the way back to the earliest photosynthetic organisms. They make ludicrous statements like "what good is half an eye?" while ignoring the fact that this isn't how eyes developed or understanding that if they had a choice between being completely blind and having only half the vision they have now, they're going to choose half vision every single time and you know it. There are a host of organisms that survive just fine with less advanced vision than mammals or birds or reptiles etc... Like polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark,the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement, the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the mollusks and vertebrates.



Consider this - with the rudimentary eye sensing light, this signal needs to be transduced into some sort of meaningful signal to the rest of the organism, otherwise it as an epileptic mess. Therefore, it would need not only a miraculous random mutation to generate photopigments, it would also need the processing units and reaction mechanisms to even have a useful function for it, otherwise it would be selected out of the gene pool quickly because it would likely disrupt something. Such is the logic of irreducible complexity.

Not to mention that all mutations that would theoretically create novel proteins, would also discard the old protein that the gene coded for.







 
16
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join