Just to put the last nail in the 'argument from complexity' coffin...

reply to post by uva3021

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by Serafine

 

Google "Beautiful Woman"

Google "Love"

You are vastly undereducated on the issue, and extremely arrogant to appropriate NEVER with the qualities of the definitive by way of CAPS, regarding things you are scarcely able to comment on.

I'm not sure I even understand the question "Where does the Beautiful Woman come from." Certainly a woman with scars and abrasions on her skin, with an asymmetric face and insufficient size of birth canal will not spread her genes in the gene pool. Symmetry and cleanliness is a mark of parasite resistance.

If you find it hard to believe a beautiful woman can arise from a single celled ancestor, well that's the way it happened and it only took 40 weeks.

"Vastly Undereducated"? Are you suggesting, in your ~ Google "Beautiful Woman" - Google "Love" statement, that You have a Google Education? Maybe it would do someone well to also acquire a Google Education? Being "extremely" arrogant I'll leave to your ad hominem argument about MY EDUCATION ( Notice Caps! ).

Have you no Humor Mahn!!!!! You Need to be taken to school? Would that be fun? Are we having fun yet? Being vastly undereducated on any "issue" or "scarcely able to make a comment" MUST be an advantage eh? !!! Rather expensive advantage I guess!

Now... uva3021

Down to Business... Origin of the Beautiful Woman.... as in Evolution Theories..... and YOU try to give me your misrepresentation of Biology? Come on man... I said EVOLUTION and Origin of the
Beautiful Woman, not basic biology 101 crap about procreation... Some people have a problem admitting evolution theories can't explain what they don't know... or as someone like you might type.. "are scarcely able to comment on".. lol

See there's more Theories than "Evolution Theory"... the ideas of intelligent design are just as valid as the design of evolution theories ( either intelligent or otherwise ). I am entertained though by the theorems some declare are Axioms! Evolution is Missing more than missing links.... But one thing it's not missing is the willing suspension of disbelief!

I hope your Google education helps you answer such questions that NO Scientist has ever claimed to KNOW... You do remind me of people who think they KNOW what light is.... after all not a physicist on the planet claims to KNOW that one! lol Go on now!!!!

Google "see the light"

reply to post by Serafine


"beautiful woman" is a rather weak road to try, in a discussion like this....or, didn't you realize?

A concept of "beauty" in the opposite sex is a very, very wide-ranging and constantly changing meme. 17th century paintings by the "Masters" exhibit the (Western Europe's civilization's) concept of "beauty", back in that era. In a word....CHUBBY! In a few more words, pale, flabby, "robust". ALL of these are social concepts that vary throughout the ages. AND cultures......

It is astonishing to have seen this same claim carried on for two pages!


IN any event, out of many, many arguments against "creation" (in the strictest sense of a literal Biblical interpretation) one has only to truly and with open eyes study Nature. I have found THIS ONE example quite compelling. It by no means is isolated, there are countless other similar ways to show the randomness of evolution and natural selection, in many varied and diverse species on this planet.

I present, the "recurring laryngeal nerve":

reply to post by weedwhacker


ALL WOMAN ARE BEAUTIFUL! ... Why do so many people "dance around the Origin of the Beautiful Woman..

The Beginning of this thread with it's Natural / Designed ~ Natural / Designed examples and the "Simple / complex" paradigms... come on! I said "A Beautiful Woman! Natural or Designed?

And ALL Women Are Beautiful! The origin of the Woman has Never been explained by Evolution theories.... Too many Missing Links on that road... for such new theories.

I love the "Study Nature" trick lol.... I am laughing... thank you for the entertainment.... Nature will be another thread I Imagine ! lol You offer such a kind suggestion to study nature lol and then a clip of Dawkins? lol Come on!

What is the Nature of your soul? The Nature of your mind? what is the Nature of your WILL? ah... you've studied yourself have you? lol I imagine your nature and mine are two different natures lol... What is the Nature of an Atheist who claims to KNOW there's NO GOD? Has he studied his freewill? Has some idea does he of what he DOESN'T Know? Atheism is a Philosophy and NOT a science.... unless you want to claim EVERYTHING is a Science?

Most the nature you study is Man-made and a creation of intelligent design eh? well maybe not TOO intelligent lol... As I mentioned in this thread before.... It is Amusing when people claim they have no freewill.. lol but hell man.... none of you fit to have survived.... managed to survive WITHOUT Intelligent Design and Co-CREATION... So CREATE your fallacy of arguments against Creation! lol

Meanwhile... neither you nor Dawkins has ever explained the Origin of the Beautiful Woman... and ALL WOMEN are beautiful. You might try to explain the "creation" of the FIRST woman, rather then dance around this fire and sing silly tunes about effects without a cause. Or to put it in terms you might understand... a created without a creator. It's the Ol' First Cause trick, man... you know that one eh? The Ol' Nail In The Coffin Of Evolution Theories.

Don't worry, it's just fun! and I do wonder one thing from your post.... FREEWILL..... Got Will?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dusty1

 

You do realize that the Earth is not a near-perfect sphere and is made of far more than one material....so your comparison (like most other creationist arguments) is really bad.

Ah Madness.....

You have a superficial view of the world around you.

Well, the point was that complexity isn't a necessary indicator of design and that other factors, including simplicity, could indicate design far better.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6d09e56fa12.jpg[/atsimg]

That right there is an incredible simple and definitively man made object.

You really believe that there is any thing "simple" about a rubber ball?

reply to post by dusty1

You really believe that there is any thing "simple" about a rubber ball?

It’s the simplest thing in the world. You blow latex, a naturally occurring substance, into a spherical mould, and the result, when cool, is a rubber ball. As for the manufacture of rubber, it’s a pretty simple process, largely undertaken by not-very-skilled manual labour.

Ah Madness... You have a superficial view of the world around you.

More superficial than someone who doesn’t know the difference between natural and synthetic rubber?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This is going to be quick and it's going to be mainly based in pictures...if you need further explanation, I bemoan the education system.

Notice how all of the designed things there are simple and purpose built? Notice how all of the naturally occurring things are all complex and relatively unrefined? This is why the argument from complexity is downright stupid, as sometimes simplicity can be an indicator that something has been acted upon by an intelligent force.

So your position is;
Designs found in nature are complex and relatively unrefined, and manmade designs are simple and purpose built. The fact that manmade designs are simple and purpose built, and nature is more complex, leads to the conclusion that the argument from complexity is downright stupid?

First, I don't think you understand the basis of the argument from complexity . The basic premise of the argument is, the more complex a system is, the more likely it came from a higher intelligence, or if system A is more complex than system B then system B comes from system A. So you're basically arguing against it, by arguing for it.

Second, showing pictures of naturally occuring materials or systems, contrasting them to naturally occuring materials that are acted upon by man, and claiming the simplistic design that man used proves the argument from complexity is stupid.....is...........well........ludicrous.

An easier way of arguing against the argument from complexity would be to say complexity isn't defined and it's in the eye of the beholder. In other words, how can we posit something to be more complex than something else, if we don't exactly know the frame in which we're talking.

reply to post by addygrace


...no, my argument is that complexity is not a necessary indicator of design, I didn't make a downright declaration that something simple and seemingly purpose built is necessarily designed, it's just something that is can be applied in some instances.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by dusty1

 

You really believe that there is any thing "simple" about a rubber ball?

It’s the simplest thing in the world. You blow latex, a naturally occurring substance, into a spherical mould, and the result, when cool, is a rubber ball. As for the manufacture of rubber, it’s a pretty simple process, largely undertaken by not-very-skilled manual labour.

Ah Madness... You have a superficial view of the world around you.

More superficial than someone who doesn’t know the difference between natural and synthetic rubber?

Et tu, Brute?

This from a guy who thinks Vulcanization means dressing up like Mr Spock..........



Rubber!

So easy a caveman can do it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by addygrace

 

...no, my argument is that complexity is not a necessary indicator of design, I didn't make a downright declaration that something simple and seemingly purpose built is necessarily designed, it's just something that is can be applied in some instances.

My fault. I misunderstood.

My position is the argument from complexity is very weak, because complexity isn't defined.

I think your argument is weak, as well. You showed the contrast between naturally occuring systems and naturally occuring systems acted upon by man. The extra step of refining those systems, by man, would indicate the man-made systems are more complex. However, complexity isn't defined, so the arguments for or against their complexity can't be argued. They're just pictures.

The irony is your pictures point to a conclusion that's the exact opposite of your argument.

I feel Serafine does have a point though in all this. Maybe not as a "Beautiful Woman" but as opposite sexes.

If evolution has it's roots exactly how we think it does, then this should be simple to explain.

Now, don't get me wrong evolution does happen;but how it is "universally" understood contradicts itself.

We can propose this in two ways on the subject of the "First Woman" (as I would like to state and 'evolve' upon Serafine's Beautiful Woman):

1)Simple to complex; Whereas we are now beings that have evolved and become more simple compared to some previous state of undefined inefficiency.

2)Going down every family tree ever to find our ancient animal ancestors.

Now, if we're all wanting to take the easiest and most efficient route, we will obviously take the first solution. Not to mention the implications of how impossible it would be to continue said trend in the second solution.

So, humans as we understand now came from some other species, correct? If evolution worked as it did, Cro Magnum was our predecessor. Now, skip a few generations (just like evolution does) and we end up with some organism that originated in the ocean. Where in this evolutionary tree do our mammal ancestors require no more or less than 2 members to reproduce? I don't care what evolution says, when did we require interaction between 2 members of our species?

After you find the answer to that question, tell me how can that be implemented when there is only 1 of it's kind?

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH


Also, I wanted to do my own little Naturally Occurring thing too:

Naturally Occurs:



Designed:



Naturally Occurs:


Designed:

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I would like to see you create a seed. I would like to see you create a rock. I would like to see you create a solar system.

I bet you don't have the intelligence to do any. The only thing you can do is create and design something from something that is already created.

reply to post by spy66


...we've gone over this. Over and over and over. That's not a matter of intelligence, that's a matter of violating the laws of physics. No, I cannot violate the law of conservation of matter. I cannot create matter...nor have we seen matter ever being created. To posit that a being created matter in violation of the laws of physics is to make an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by spy66

 

...we've gone over this. Over and over and over. That's not a matter of intelligence, that's a matter of violating the laws of physics. No, I cannot violate the law of conservation of matter. I cannot create matter...nor have we seen matter ever being created. To posit that a being created matter in violation of the laws of physics is to make an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Correct, our intelligence is restricted to the existence of finite. We can only be intelligent within it. That means we have limits.

Creating and shaping something from something that already is. Demands imagination, not necessary intelligence. We only use our mind to reshape and mix things that already exist.

We would really need intelligence to create something from something that didn't already exist as finite. To us that would be going beyond the laws of physics. As you say.

reply to post by spy66

Correct, our intelligence is restricted to the existence of finite.

Although the concept of infinity has no bearing on your argument with Madness, you are quite wrong here. The concept of infinity was invented by human beings. It does not exist in nature, where all quantities, without exception, are finite.

We do not observe an infinite universe. Infinity is a human invention, and thus well within the ambit of our intelligence.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
Game theory

At one point will a gamete of size x' invade a population of gamete size x. All it takes is one mutation over the 1.5-2 billion year time frame for a gamete of sufficient size x' to invade the population size gamete x. Then different functions would evolve because different selection pressures are imposed upon each gamete size. Shaw-Mohler and Maynard Smith provided theorems on matters of sex-allocation ratios and the evolution of anisogamy (two genders).

For each theorem, the assumptions are made that gamete size is largely genetic, and mutations occur. Both assumptions are asserted as a present day fact because both have been rigorously observed and assessed.

In all likelihood, the number of "genders", or number of chromosomal variants, in a population fluctuated from 1 to 5000 (as is found in many fungi), then we at some point diverged from a two-sex system, which later formed an XY system in some species. I would say the XY system (heterogametic) evolved before we diverged from arthropods since Drosophila uses a pseudo-XY system.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by spy66

 

Correct, our intelligence is restricted to the existence of finite.

Although the concept of infinity has no bearing on your argument with Madness, you are quite wrong here. The concept of infinity was invented by human beings. It does not exist in nature, where all quantities, without exception, are finite.

We do not observe an infinite universe. Infinity is a human invention, and thus well within the ambit of our intelligence.

You are saying that the infinite doesn't exist in nature?

Interesting. I guess that argument is not made up by a human?


Nature exists within the infinite. Nature is expanding the infinite is not.

reply to post by spy66


And yet you can provide no evidence of 'the infinite', it's just something that you claim is there without a single shred of evidence...for whatever reason. I mean, seriously, what's next? Faeries on Venus?

reply to post by spy66

You are saying that the infinite doesn't exist in nature?

That is correct.

Interesting. I guess that argument is not made up by a human?

It is not an argument; it is an observation. It was not made up, therefore; it was simply made.

Nature exists within the infinite. Nature is expanding the infinite is not.

If ‘the infinite’ existed, it would be part of nature – obviously. Space and time do not exist outside the universe.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by spy66

 

And yet you can provide no evidence of 'the infinite', it's just something that you claim is there without a single shred of evidence...for whatever reason. I mean, seriously, what's next? Faeries on Venus?

Well prove to me and to everyone else that the infinite doesn't exist?

If you can prove it i will accept.