What bugs me about the theory of evolution

a reply to: cooperton

The king of Appeal to Complexity!

Literally every single post ever! Must be a scary world to live in that is so unexplainably complex!.. oh... I guess not, because you are safe in the knowledge that god has a plan. Phew!... close one!

Just because you can't imagine how it may have happened doesn't mean in didn't happen.. in fact, obviously it did happen!... because it's here!

Unless you can point to the "hand of god" doing your imaginary "creating" then it must have happened by natural process (even if that process was set in motion by some as of yet undefined greater intelligence... currently, any god is solidly in the realm of imagination... in other words NOT SHOWN TO BE REAL) ... which, with time and research, every example presented as "irreducibly complex (lol)", has been shown to be not "irreducibly complex (lol)".

I pretty distinctly remember you saying in the past that a cell was irreducibly complex... that the DNA and cell machinery were inseparable, that it was impossible for them to be independent.

Guess what?!?

Cell machinery and DNA can exist independently... so, not "irreducibly complex (lol)"! Once this happens, you never mention those examples again... though funny enough, even though it's been completely debunked, you still bring up the eye "irreducibly complex (lol)"!

Do you want to move the goal posts, or narrow the gap a bit further?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

More like the adaptations that they had allowed them to exploit more than one ecological niche.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

The king of Appeal to Complexity!

Literally every single post ever! Must be a scary world to live in that is so unexplainably complex!.

Not sure what you're talking about. Where did I appeal to complexity? I plainly stated what would be required for a swim bladder to turn into a lung. It would first need a pipe to connect to the mouth (trachea) and then also a valve that would prevent water from getting in at all times (an epiglottis). The epiglottis would need to have muscular and neural innervation which would be synchronized to some sort of sensor that would allow it to close to prevent drowning, and open to allow air inside when relevant. This is too big of a leap for one mutation to do, and any intermediate step would not be viable (i.e. trachea without an epiglottis means you drown very quickly underwater).

Cell machinery and DNA can exist independently... so, not "irreducibly complex (lol)"! Once this happens, you never mention those examples again... though funny enough, even though it's been completely debunked, you still bring up the eye "irreducibly complex (lol)"!

Also not sure what you're talking about. I Was debating phantom on another forum about the necessity of all components for protein polymerization to occur in the cell. She eventually disappeared once she realize what a "non-spontaneous" reaction implied.

Unless, you know of an organism that is capable of creating proteins without a DNA code, transcription and translation? As well as a metabolism to supply energy for this process and modulators to maintain a homeostasis throughout the process.

Let's hear it.

Actually no, I'll save you time. Such an organism doesn't exist. Even viruses rely on the host's transcription and translation mechanisms, so there's no getting around it.

a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you figure it out yourself? Exercise the old noggin in some abstract thinking... try to understand why I keep pointing out your Appeals to Complexity? You never responded to me last time I pointed out how blatantly obvious your appeals to complexity are... but... here we go again!

APPEAL...

This is too big of a leap for one mutation to do, and any intermediate step would not be viable...

This is an assumption, you haven't shown proof of this... it may be possible, you don't know, or it may have happened in a series of incremental changes... you don't know... and haven't even vaguely shown it by just by pointing at a few interconnected systems... so it is very clearly an APPEAL!

... TO COMPLEXITY

I plainly stated what would be required for a swim bladder to turn into a lung. It would first need a pipe to connect to the mouth (trachea) and then also a valve that would prevent water from getting in at all times (an epiglottis). The epiglottis would need to have muscular and neural innervation which would be synchronized to some sort of sensor that would allow it to close to prevent drowning, and open to allow air inside when relevant.

Why don't you add a few more sentences in there? Make it sound even more complex... if this is not you trying to establish complexity, then what is it? Your bogus theory literally states "complexity" in the name of it... irreducible complexity (lol)... so are you going to deny this is you pointing out complexity?... so, absolutely... TO COMPLEXITY!

So, to simplify... "Very complex... so couldn't have happened".

Appeal to Complexity 100% established.

She eventually disappeared once she realize what a "non-spontaneous" reaction implied.

That would be making an assumption again... based on past experience, she likely "disappeared" because she got tired of trying to point out the massive assumptions you make, and call them facts.

See what I did there?... by adding the word "likely" I added a certain amount of indeterminacy to the statement. I "admit" I don't know something.

As opposed to what you did, and do regularly in your arguments. You made a "claim" to know something, without verifying the facts. Do you know for a fact why she left, or are you making an assumption? (No need to answer the question, I don't care about the answer, the point is to show you claim facts, and can't admit that the position of "god did it" is a claim).

Unless, you know of an organism that is capable of creating proteins without a DNA code, transcription and translation? As well as a metabolism to supply energy for this process and modulators to maintain a homeostasis throughout the process.

... and there's the expected goal-post shift. Reduce the gap, move the goal posts... etc.

You used to say, "a cell machinery and it's DNA are inseparable", now you're trying to bury the point in the gaps of science, and pointing to very "complex" functions, and opining for a simple answer.

Science doesn't work that way dude...

If you feel the research has made a wrong conclusion, counter it in a peer reviewed journal. If there is any validity to your arguments, write them up (you spend enough time writing here... shouldn't be to hard to add some formatting and a reference section) and get a paper reviewed and published... the onus is on you to correct the science and put it out there... If you post these ideas as published literature... I will spin on a dime! lol... So where's your peer-reviewed literature in support of creationism?

The simple breakdown of this disussion is:
Scientists admit they don't know everything.
Creationists claim to "know" (based on a feeling) that god did it.

Who is being dishonest?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Is there anything you know about feelings?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

You made a "claim" to know something, without verifying the facts

I used current knowledge about biology to show what would be necessary for a swim bladder to turn into a functioning lung.

Any comment on how a trachea could form with a working epiglottis neurally connected to sensors that allow it to open and close at the right times and also the musculature that would be required to operate the epiglottis properly?

Any science on how that could have occurred all in one mutation? Especially given the fact that we have never seen new functional organs like that appear from a mutation.

I follow the science, and there is no known mutation that can create any of those, let alone all of those required functions to create a functional windpipe.

Stick to the science

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Appeal to Complexity 100% established

Actually this line of attack is a Red Herring designed to derail the logical arguments being presented...it's old and useless now, it might have worked the first 20 times, but no longer.

a reply to: cooperton

No, you didn't "show what is necessary", you described some interconnected systems (complexity), and made a claim that evolution couldn't have done it, that it couldn't have happened (appeal).

Quite literally an Appeal to Complexity... not sure why you keep arguing against this. It is plain as day. Please just try to logically deconstruct your argument, and show me semantically why it is not an Appeal to Complexity... I won't wait, because you can't... because it is 100% an Appeal to Complexity... a defined fallacy, logically sound in every way.

Ergo, when you present this type of argument, you have already lost, without even needing to refute any of your specific points.

You haven't shown any corrections to the data, you haven't shown any alternative, you haven't shown how god did it, you haven't shown the tools that god may have used to do it, you haven't shown anything spontaneously appearing if god didn't use tools and just magics stuff into existence, you haven't even shond that it couldn't have happened incrementally... you haven't shown anything at all, except that you believe that evolution is impossible, and believe instead an undefined god is totally possible.

So, no, you didn't even vaguely, in any sense whatsoever, "show what is necessary".

You are presenting completely fallacious, or deluded arguments.

You keep showing data "from other people's evolutionary research", but are making philosophical conclusions about that data, then asking where your science is wrong... lol... soooo dishonest!

Your science is wrong, in that you are drawing philosophical conclusions from scientific data.

To boil it down your "Method" (the data you present) may be sound... but your "Conclusions" are entirely erroneous, and unfounded from the data you present.

Academic dishonesty at it's finest.

You are conflating science and philosophy.

Science never claimed to know everything.

You are just completely misrepresenting the concepts of evolution... no organ has ever "spontaneously" appeared... in fact if it did, that would be suggestive of creation (you've got it completely backwards), changes progressively "change incrementally" through 1000's of generations.

You stick the the science and stop drawing philosophical conclusions from scientific data.

Charlatan.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

No, it's not a red herring (... comment from the creationist cheering squad)... an Appeal to Complexity, is a known and defined logical fallacy. Read up on fallacies.

LOL... it worked the first 20 times because it is logically sound... it is still working, because your side is still presenting the exact same argument 100's of times later, and it is still logically sound.

So what you're saying is you want me to stop pointing out logical flaws in your arguments.

Sounds about right... you can't argue with facts, so lets argue with fallacies?

You guys are a riot!

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

No, you didn't "show what is necessary", you described some interconnected systems (complexity), and made a claim that evolution couldn't have done it, that it couldn't have happened (appeal).

ok you really gotta stop. This is the definition you gave with a link a while back:

Appeal to complexity: "Concluding that because you don't understand something, it must not be true, it's improbable, or the argument must be flawed." your link

Which is not what I did at all. I described a matter-of-fact system, and showed why it could not have developed incrementally. Not once did I say or imply anything along the lines of "it is not true because I don't understand it"

If you want to discuss the premises I put forth, or propose a specific mechanism how the windpipe could have by-passed this dilemma, I'm all ears.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Speaking on 1000s of generations being required for evolution to transpire let’s look at the fruit fly which through vigorous attempts and even gene manipulation outright failed to provide any evidence to support evolution, if that scientific research isn’t conclusive enough for you let’s look at the 40000 generations of bacteria subjected to even more stress and deliberate attempts to force mutations... This was an even bigger failure to provide any evidence for evolution. Any and all changes were found to be entirely degenerative even when trying to bolster traits...
That’s what real scientific data says about incremental changes over 1000s of generations...
Let’s stick with the 1000s of generations though and let’s go back to a proposed single ancestor for all life, with that as your own introduced prerequisite for even incremental change the time required for all life to have evolved is a complete fallacy for the Universe itself let alone the Earth has not existed long enough for it to be possible...

a reply to: cooperton

So you're not claiming that evolution couldn't have done it? Or in other words, saying that you don't understand how evolution could have done it?

You haven't showed at all why it couldn't have happened incrementally, because you are trying to prove a negative... you haven't posited a falsifiable theory. So, by extension, you are making a claim or an appeal.

It really is just very simple logic that you keep denying.

I'll keep pointing out the logical flaws in your arguments, though, to be helpful.

No need to discuss your premise, because your logic is flawed at the outset, and your conclusions are unfounded as a result.

So no, I won't stop.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

... and back to the creationist square one.

So, again, a simple breakdown of this discussion is:
Scientists admit they don't know everything.
Creationists claim to "know" (based on a feeling) that god did it.

Who is being dishonest?

I bet I won't get an honest or serious response to this question from a creationist.

I'll get some avoidance, obfuscation and diversionary tactics though... i'm sure.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

You haven't showed at all why it couldn't have happened incrementally

Yes I did.

I pointed out specifically the traits that a functioning trachea would need in an underwater creature. It would need an epiglottis with proper neural and muscular control so it could prevent drowning when underwater, and be open when above water. Without this it would drown. It's scientific fact, not speculation.

To think that a mutation could create a trachea with all of the above functions is totally faith-based, because nothing ever in the scientific literature has showed such an occurrence to be even remotely possible.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

You fail to grasp the enormity of your own implied prerequisite for incremental change the current belief for existing different life forms on earth outnumbers the stars in our Milky Way Galaxy... The best current estimate is over 1 trillion if we want to go back to the beginning and that number is easily ten times larger... Those numbers say it’s impossible for evolution under the prerequisites you deem to be required for incremental change. It’s actual worse than that though those numbers say with that many generations being required even if full blown evolution transpired in those time frames the Universe itself still isn’t old enough to substantiate that claim...
You know when an evolutionist has failed because they resort in insignificant attempts to belittle mock and ridicule like small minded children who have embarrassed themselves...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

No, I admit that there are likely many mechanisms... you are the one trying to harden my views to a very specific viewpoint that, when dissected, is not even vaguely close to what I stated.

You are making massive assumptions about my beliefs and knowledge... I am not addressing the particulars of your post because I have answered these exact questions many times on this board, and am not wasting my time going through it again.

You have ignored my prior posts, and like I said, reverted back to creationist square one... starting the discussion again with "it's too complex", and "there's not enough time"... in an argument that has been so thoroughly refuted from so many people and sources, that it is blind ignorance (or diversion) to start there again.

Go through my post history if you would like to find responses to these questions.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

There is nothing you have said nor that science has said that can account for the gross discrepancy of allotted time required for evolution versus the age of the Universe let alone that of Earth even with generous estimates being granted in favour for supporting it...
It does not matter what matters is that Evolution and the claims evolutionists make are not factual yet the statements made by them on its behalf although faith based at best are represented as unerring or factual...
Evolution is busy trying to prove itself but the harder it try’s the more holes it pokes in itself...
Real evolution meanwhile is quite limited rather unremarkable and incapable of what is claimed to be possible...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

so where is the creationist research that points to a god?