Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

a reply to: Phage

theory which fits all available data and has no (none) data which contradicts it.

Can you show how any of that data negates a creator. Or is it possible for more
than one theory to fit the data?

a reply to: carsforkids

Can you show how any of that data negates a creator.

Can you show me evidence which supports one?

Or is it possible for more than one theory to fit the data?

Yes.


Does the concept of a creator negate the theory of evolution?

a reply to: Phage

In a sense it does because it would go against the gradual random occurrences that the theory suggests has no need for a grand design or creator... That everything in other words is just a series of happy accidents...
But on the other hand it does not have to because evolution can never be responsible for origins or creation yet origins and creation have to be responsible for any and all evolution...

a reply to: Phage

Objective empirical evidence ? Of course not! But does the evidence
negate one?
And your answer being yes to the second question. It seems rather
biased to not include the absolute possibility of a creator as a second
theory. And I would love to hear your thoughts as to why it is not.

Does the concept of a creator negate the theory of evolution?

No because it is only a theory.

a reply to: carsforkids

I have not "why not."
Doesn't really matter to me but the theory of evolution makes a lot of sense.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

That everything in other words is just a series of happy accidents...

Some people have won the lottery multiple times. Divine intervention?

But on the other hand it does not have to because evolution can never be responsible for origins or creation yet origins and creation have to be responsible for any and all evolution...

Apart from intellectual curiosity the origin doesn't really matter. However understanding how life has evolved has implications as to how it may or may not continue to change.

To insist that life is static is a concept which leads nowhere.

a reply to: Phage

If you don’t play you can’t win, play often spend more and your odds are greatly increased...
Then there are those who are just rather smart and found ways to win multiple times by increasing their own odds with the above mentioned combined with complex software they created themselves...

The only thing going nowhere is this conversation because you fail to see the importance of origins, I suppose that’s par for the course though so that evolution can have the limelight... You wouldn’t want to admit what I said was accurate but then again the deflection didn’t diminish it either...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

If you don’t play you can’t win, play often spend more and your odds are greatly increased...

No. Not greatly. But that notion is what gambling is based on.

You wouldn’t want to admit what I said was accurate but then again the deflection didn’t diminish it either...

What is it that you said, exactly?

a reply to: Phage

May as well go hang gliding...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carsforkids

I have not "why not."
Doesn't really matter to me but the theory of evolution makes a lot of sense.

And they both make tremendous sense to me. Evolution a little less because of so
many unanswered questions. The lack of transitional fossils and so on. My point is
a magical creator being responsible for existence is not scientifically without great
merit in my own unbiased view. It is no more ridiculous then anything science has
come up with away from design. Just because it is a theory that includes an infinite
being who follows the very definition of the word GOD. Being able to speak things
into existence etc. I fail completely to understand how it is a less believable theory.
And further more I see how such an entity would align exactly to the how he is
described in scripture. Morally spiritually powerfully and with thoughts of free will
according to love being his goal. I would even go so far as to say love is the reason
for all of this (existence). But don't be confused I'm not referring to his love for us.
I'm referring to his quest to experience love from us.

a reply to: carsforkids

I don't understand the notion that evolution conflicts with the notion of a creator.

a reply to: Phage

And I don't see that it actually has to.

a reply to: Phage

To insist that life is static is a concept which leads nowhere.

I like that!

a reply to: 5StarOracle

But on the other hand it does not have to because evolution can never be responsible for origins or creation yet origins and creation have to be responsible for any and all evolution...

I think like this but adaptation gave rise to some evolution overtime.
Yet a causeless cause is even scientifically necessary.

a reply to: rnaa
I was referring to its major increase in popularity regarding its usage in biology, with the attached meaning that Darwin gave it (or the way he used it), that it was a natural process for example (that was what the comment was about, 'natural' as defined in that comment regarding its causal factors). Actually, it was after Darwin when this way of using the word "evolution" to refer to Darwin's ideas about it really became popular. I was trying to keep it short because that wasn't the point there, that's the main reason I summarized the above with the phrase "the introduction of the word "evolution" in biology by Darwin"; perhaps not the best choice of words to indicate or imply that I was talking about the way Darwin used the word and that particular 'introduction', rather than merely the introduction of the word in biology itself. I didn't expect anyone to make an issue out of it, seeing that it was so besides the point I was making there.

I'm well aware that the word "evolution" was in usage long before Darwin, with a different meaning. It may have even been in use in the field of biology, with a similar meaning, but still ('slightly'*) different. But if you want to make a big deal out of it, I suggest you quote a biologist from before Darwin's time that uses the word with the exact same meaning that Darwin used it, in the same biological context. That might convince me that Darwin had no part in introducing the word "evolution", with the particular meaning he attached to it, to the field of biology. Which was what I was talking about there, something which you have not voiced any disagreement with. *: "slightly" is of course determined in the eye of the beholder, what is "slightly" to one person may be a bit more than "slightly" to another person.

Note that Charles Lyell's usage of the word does not have the same meaning as the way Darwin used it in a biological context. Neither is the earlier described meaning "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s; from Online Etymology Dictionary) the same as the way Darwin and his contemporary and later promoters used it.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Phage

theory which fits all available data and has no (none) data which contradicts it.

Can you show how any of that data negates a creator.

This question gets asked fairly often around here and the answer will always be no. But not because of any evidence at all, let alone overwhelming evidence supporting any creators period (just so Im not accused of singling out those of the Abrahamic traditions). When utilizing the scientific method, there is no such thing as providing evidence of a negative. In other words, you can't prove that god doesn't exist, you can only show the evidence that indicates that there is some sort of Creator.Science only shows us the possibilities. In the end, its up to those who have faith yo show evidence that their specific iteration of god is the true and correct one. Even worse, someone attempting to prove something hypothetical to be incorrect, is approaching things from a preconceived notion often based on confirmation biases. That's not science. It's someone with an agenda pretending to be all about the science.

a reply to: peter vlar

So the evidence could never show that evolution doesn't happen?

Double tap I

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: peter vlar

So the evidence could never show that evolution doesn't happen?

Over 150 years of research, selective breeding, and artificial selection trying to force evolution yet no organism has ever evolved into another organism. Fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, microbes remain microbes.

It's hard to prove a negative, but that's about as close as you can get to proving that something does not happen.

a reply to: cooperton

Almost sounds like confirmation bias doesn't it?