Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: 5StarOracle

But if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, you are doomed.

If you're a Christian. But if you aren't, you don't have to.

a reply to: Akragon

Good evening nocturnal tree dwelling kitty...

a reply to: Phage

Ah I already answered that...
Although I believe he is God I already said he judges your "knowing" or "belief" In him through deeds...
You just may be saved after all buddy...

a reply to: 5StarOracle
So, you have you're own version.

So do I.

No one here gets out alive.

I don't need a reward to not act like a dick.

a reply to: Phage

BY JOHN DONNE

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee 

Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so; 

For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow 

Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me. 

From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,

Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow, 

And soonest our best men with thee do go, 

Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery. 

Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men, 

And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell, 

And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well

And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then? 

One short sleep past, we wake eternally 

And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die. 


My favorite

a reply to: 5StarOracle

How comforting for you.

a reply to: Phage

Surprise!
You get one anyway...
You going to be a dick and refuse it?

a reply to: peter vlar

It's the same verbal garbage, canned and packaged for the next "debate". The "proof" Coop so desperately asks everyone to present is right under his nose. Note that he never talks about analytical evidence. He simply makes a statement that it isn't true, that it's a lie, that it's a conspiracy, that there's no proof.

I'd take him to task on the methods and results but it would be a waste of time.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton
And are retinas are backwards meaning we have a blind spot where the nerve attaches.
A god surely wouldnt design this but evolution explains it.

Where the optic nerve meets the retina causes a blind spot in each eye. Each eye's blind spot is compensated for by the other eye. Seems like a fine system to me.

So are vision is poorly designed

In what way? We can make magnificent creations and behold great beauty with our eyes. Our eyes pick up on a thin range of 400-700nm wavelength from the electromagnetic spectrum that allows us to seamlessly interact with our environment. We can adjust to near and far vision instantly thanks to muscles around the eye. These things can last for over 100 years, much greater than any camera ever made.

originally posted by: peter vlar

instead resort to further ad hominem attacks

I don't believe I said any insults to you or the others in a while. If you're referring to the belief in mutant ape ancestry that is no insult, that is literally what you all believe so you shouldn't be ashamed of it.

a reply to: cooperton

If everything is "so perfect" why do people go blind? Why do they have diseases? Why are there genetic abnormalities? Your position is ridiculous because nothing is perfect and not everyone has 20:20 vision. Your supernatural being needs to recode her programs to live up to your expectations.

Earth, the solar system and the universe are not very friendly towards life. This supernatural being must be quite a nasty tart to allow the suffering we see on this planet. But according to you, all her designs are perfect. Complete craziness.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

If everything is "so perfect" why do people go blind? Why do they have diseases? Why are there genetic abnormalities?

Because we persistently defy our nature. Unnatural things happen to those who deviate from the natural intent. This would hold true even from an evolutionary perspective.

Your supernatural being needs to recode her programs to live up to your expectations.

My organic computer is working fine. Do you need help?

Earth, the solar system and the universe are not very friendly towards life.

The earth has been in the goldilocks zone of habitability for the past known history, without any deviation from the sun's orbit. It's like clockwork.

This supernatural being must be quite a nasty tart to allow the suffering we see on this planet.

Should a father let his kids roam and learn for their self, or just lock them in a room all day? Instead of being a grumpy kid in the corner on time out, look to find answers to your questions.

a reply to: cooperton

You obviously require leadership and supervision. If the world worked the way you envision, we would be permanently in ape-like mode.

a reply to: cooperton

Except we don't defy nature. You are clearly now attributing conditions like trisomy21, Tay–Sachs etc to "unnatural" lifestyle.
Or perhaps randomn mutations due to transcription errors? You know that god created system, that breaks down a lot?

Get off the grass neighbor, you are playing a typical Creationist card.

Show proof.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: dragonridr


Also my neck is bigger around than my head...

I'm really sorry to hear that you're suffering from microencephalopathy. I'll try to keep that in mind when formulating future responses so that ours more easily able to understand.

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't now it could be a goiter that is causing this issue. Perhaps some more iodate in his table salt?

a reply to: Noinden

Too bad human metabolism evolved with a requirement for supplemental iodine.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
You don't understand science.

You clearly know nothing about Bioinformatics ....you are not in any way shape or form educated in the sciences involved. - Noinden

You know, you can just program a chatbot to make these types of repetitive phrases, saves a lot of time.

Then again, perhaps somebody already figured that out and went ahead and did it. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Chatbots kan respond to keywords and phrases made by others as well so that it's more convincing that they're actually chatting with someone and responding to what they're saying and not giving completely random or standardized responses.

Many pages back I made this comment (between brackets is new):

...
(Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.)
...
(New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.)
...
(New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.)
...
(Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23).
...
(Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, www.archaeology.org/​online/ interviews/​newman.html, accessed 2/23/2009.)
...
(In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.)
...

Unless ATS is censoring the comment above in such a way that I'm the only one that can see it ..., I don't get peter vlar's "Sweet! More claims, Gish gallops, no citations....What a brilliant rebuttal!" (especially since he didn't respond to the comment above [top of page 47 for those interested in the facts discussed and cited there], and the comment he did respond to also contained citations and repetitions of the citations or the most relevant parts of those in the comment above and subsequent comments of mine; the least someone can do is make the lame argument that 'that's just their opinion' or a variation on that general downplaying technique [such as making the accusation that it's just quote mining, page 48] as was done in my thread on this subforum or zoom in and nag about the only citation that has "speculative essay" in the title to distract from the acknowledgements regarding specific facts about "common descent" and the "tree of life" therein, even when they are not presented as facts but in the standard preferred agnostic vague way; a favorite way of arguing and thinking in philosophical naturalism cause otherwise, when applying Newton's methodology as quoted/cited earlier, the propaganda game is exposed way too quickly)

Well I get it in the sense of thinking about chatbots and propaganda techniques (either as a victim or one that likes to use them). But perhaps an appropiate time for some of the people that agree with peter vlar's views and way of arguing on this subforum to speak up and mention that there might be something wrong in the way things are done on ATS in terms of rational conversation vs propaganda techniques? Silent agreement with absolute nonsense is not something that rubs off well when thinking about bandwagon behaviour, as described in the article in my signature and preceding page. What the heck, even if you don't agree with peter vlar, it's still OK to say at least something about it so I know sensible people (willing to make sense and be honest) are still out there. I think Cooperton might notice what I'm talking about, so go ahead, perhaps you can say something sensible and honest about it while still maintaining respectful to those who stay silent (even while making comments in this thread; I'm thinking now about the "ad hominem attacks" accusation earlier, or the ridiculous claim about the fossil record initially).

Btw, you can see the exact same routine in my thread that I linked in my previous comment (plus a couple of others, like straw man arguments, red herrings, doing the thing that cooperton already talked about regarding the source of whatever facts or evidence that is presented, or where the citations are nicely ordered in terms of relevance to a particular point, in this case the fossil record and genetics, etc.).

I also mentioned something about repetition being a key factor for success for both propaganda and education.

“By clever and persevering use of propaganda even heaven can be represented as hell to the people, and conversely the most wretched life as paradise.”—ADOLF HITLER, MEIN KAMPF.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000 and subsequent page linked in my signature

Does anyone in the meantime have a sensible and detailed (not standardized or appearing standardized, something a chatbot could say as well) response to the use of the appeal and reverse appeal to pride as used by Dawkins and Krauss below in the phrases and contrast put between "a sophisticated physicist" and "a naive person" (quoting Dawkins) and "in physics" (quoting Krauss) below?

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

I like Dr. Beckett's phrase from the Stargate Atlantis season 3 episode 3 (or 13) about people falling for (falling in love with) the character and stories told by Lucius Lavin in that episode towards the end, you can find the phrase in the 2nd video after the video above in the same playlist, at the end:

"It's embarassing enough without you constantly reminding us, thank you." Especially his delivery, you sorta gotta see the body language and tone above cause the phrase itself doesn't do it* justice. * it = my point and reason for liking that phrase in relation to the Dawkins and Krauss video above, feeling a bit like Sheppard in the process, perhaps you need to have seen the whole episode to get my feelings regarding this issue of "selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something", and people taking it or people who behave in this manner just as Stephen Hawking does, seriously, as if they are capable of (or better said, willing to) educating (educate) you (cause they're quite capable), as if they are worth listening to, or using the phrase that was used to describe and promote Lucius Lavin quite a lot in that episode: "a very wise and kind man".
Stephen Hawking's version (16:10 - 23:04):

a reply to: whereislogic

Chatbots kan respond to keywords and phrases made by others as well

That’s rich coming from you. A member of a cult who picks up on single words and posts an essay linked to their cult website and cult YouTube channels.

Maybe this will help

a reply to: Phage

Nah must be Gods punishment, for daring to live in areas with shoddy mineral profiles Because the creationist crew here inform me it could never be evolution

a reply to: whereislogic

Because repeated comments can never be correct can they? Don't be obtuse. Cooperton has repeatedly demonstrated that he (and I am assuming gender) does not understand Science, despite claiming degrees in Chemistry and Neuroscience.