Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't see many flaws in the cosmological arugment

the biggest one being that with some small revisions, it refutes itself.

Oh so if you change the argument you can make it refute itself....that is the very definition of a strawman.

I'm curious to see evidence that evolution is a fabricated theory or at the very least conspiratorial.

I never made those claims. I just am not convinced that it is fact like many people are, because we have no known mechanism for body plan morphogenesis.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I mean he is simply asking you to layout the basic idea of modern evolutionary synthesis and the mechanisms that drive it as you understand it. This is a perfectly reasonable request. My guess is you are probably a neo-darwinist and just using another term, so I would ask you to do the same thing.

you have no reason to believe my understanding of mes is inadequate. let's discuss something specific or call it good.

We have no reason to believe that it is .... Like what kind of response is this other than a cop out

I should not have to defend something you already understand and agree with. That is called playing games and Im going to pass on that, sorry not sorry. If you have something specific that concerns you, please share it, otherwise, quit baiting me. If you don't have anything specific, then I'm done with this tangent of discussion.

Oh so when we just state a position without giving you reasons we must provide reasons, but when we ask you to provide reasons for your position we are playing games.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

LOL, you are hilarious. Why are you so afraid to make a statement about an experiment that has already been done?

I've made my statements about the experiment you referenced and described exactly how it doesn't allow the conclusions that you are making.

Where???? Again, I don't know which experiment you are talking about. I've asked several times and even went back 20 days to Oct 8th in this thread and saw no links to any experiments. I'm not re-reading the whole thread because you too lazy to simply post a link. Post the #ing link and I'll give you my 2 cents on it. Geesh.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Please explain the contradiction. Just asserting there is one putting a question mark after my statement doesn't actually show anything but your opinion.

Seriously? I just explained it. You said PHILOSOPHY and then said BASED ON SCIENCE. That is a contradiction and your statements are not based on science in the slightest.

Well as I just said I think teleological arguments are inference to the best explanation and not deductive. I think they show that design, according to our current state of knowledge, is the best explanation. So the whole purpose of the analogy is to bring up a discussion of what justifies inferring design. Paley seems to believe that there are cases in which the presence of function and suitability of constitution to function justifies that we infer to intelligent design. This is an epistemological claim about how one can be justified in inferring something to be designed. So empiricism isn't really involved except in the study of the mechanisms.

Teleological arguments cannot be proven, though, they are assumed based on personal opinion about on the way certain things function. There is zero direct evidence of design.

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Can you prove the universe began to exist? These arguments always require numerous assumptions. There is nothing scientific about it whatsoever.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't see many flaws in the cosmological arugment

the biggest one being that with some small revisions, it refutes itself.

Oh so if you change the argument you can make it refute itself....that is the very definition of a strawman.

I'm curious to see evidence that evolution is a fabricated theory or at the very least conspiratorial.

I never made those claims. I just am not convinced that it is fact like many people are, because we have no known mechanism for body plan morphogenesis.

Sorry if I was unclear. I don't want to convince you of anything because that's a fools errand. I was simply hoping to clear up confusion regarding specific details, but you want to debate the philosophy and philosophy is concerned with the immaterial and immeasurable, placing it outside the scope of modern tools and methods. Convenient. But to this point, there is no conspiracy in MES. It remains the most logical solution to the question of how initial life progressed to what we observe today.

We have no reason to believe that it is .... Like what kind of response is this other than a cop out

Listen person, I'm not the topic. If you don't have a specific concern that is not about me, then I have nothing further to say to you here.

a reply to: Barcs

Seriously? I just explained it. You said PHILOSOPHY and then said BASED ON SCIENCE. That is a contradiction and your statements are not based on science in the slightest.

No I said a philosophical position based on Science. Meaning I draw inferences from what I know about the way the world works.

Teleological arguments cannot be proven, though, they are assumed based on personal opinion about on the way certain things function. There is zero direct evidence of design.

I just said they were in the format of inference to the best explanation. They are certain, but they are enough to show that God is a metaphysical possibility which is all I need to do.

Can you prove the universe began to exist? These arguments always require numerous assumptions. There is nothing scientific about it whatsoever.

Rather than just trying to negate my position why don't you tell me what you think, is the universe finite or eternal?

All the evidence we have says that finite.

The BGV Theroem
The Second law of thermodynamics
The CMB and the Great Galaxy seeds
The expanding Universe.

The list goes on. Why don't you name one piece of evidence to the contrary?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well I told you my issues with the theory. All you did was assert MES and then apparently refuse to explain what you think that is.

Wrong thread.

a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm
you have no reason to believe my understanding of mes is inadequate. let's discuss something specific or call it good.

Okay, let's try again. You mentioned the MES (or evolutionary theory) is incomplete. Would you be willing to share what you find to be incomplete or missing from the theory?

I'll offer one thought to get the ball rolling - one concern is that evolutionary theory is almost entirely formulated around vertical transfer of heritable information – from parent to offspring. Yet the most abundant organisms on earth by far (microbes, viruses, arthropods, plants, et al) can exchange genetic information differently - i.e. laterally, via some other method (e.g parasitism) across different genotypes (or species). While this has been recognized as a distinct alternative to vertical transfer, it for some reason remains omitted from the theory. I think it's because it contradicts the MES as presently constructed. For instance - lateral transfer would seem to disobey the most fundamental central pillar of evolutionary theory i.e. descent with modification.

(NOTE: the theory of evolution and our knowledge about how it works are currently two different things)

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm
you have no reason to believe my understanding of mes is inadequate. let's discuss something specific or call it good.

Okay, let's try again. You mentioned the MES (or evolutionary theory) is incomplete. Would you be willing to share what you find to be incomplete or missing from the theory?

I'll offer one thought to get the ball rolling - one concern is that evolutionary theory is almost entirely formulated around vertical transfer of heritable information – from parent to offspring. Yet the most abundant organisms on earth by far (microbes, viruses, arthropods, plants, et al) can exchange genetic information differently - laterally, via some other method (e.g parasitism) across different genotypes (or species). While this has been recognized as a distinct alternative to vertical transfer, it for some reason remains omitted from the theory. I think it's because it contradicts the MES as presently constructed. For instance - lateral transfer would seem to disobey the most fundamental central pillar of evolutionary theory i.e. descent with modification.

(NOTE: the theory of evolution and our knowledge about how it works are currently two different things)

HGT is an acknowledged function in evolution.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I would say it is an issue of practicality rather than deception. This seems to harken to your earlier semantic objection which doesn't really contradict evolution, it just criticizes the methods by which evolution is communicated. A personal peeve rather than an error in the information. Is there an error you want to share or do you just want to keep griping about definitional aesthetics?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I just said they were in the format of inference to the best explanation. They are certain, but they are enough to show that God is a metaphysical possibility which is all I need to do.

I get it...you are trying to make a hypothetical look like an absolute, the textual equivalent of a hologram or a projection. To all appearances it is solid, but try punching it and surprise! Its fake. An illusion. How amusing. Impractical, but amusing. ...Neat.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
HGT is an acknowledged function in evolution.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I would say it is an issue of practicality rather than deception. This seems to harken to your earlier semantic objection which doesn't really contradict evolution, it just criticizes the methods by which evolution is communicated. A personal peeve rather than an error in the information. Is there an error you want to share or do you just want to keep griping about definitional aesthetics?

I'm not attempting some semantic debate here. I presented techincal aspects of the MES. Where are you on this?

Perhaps you can take the time to read and digest what I've actually said. I've been quite clear. HGT is recognized, I know this, and already acknowledged that much in my last post. However NO - it is not included in the MES, and unless you can dig up the central tenets that include HGT and cite them here then I stand by my statement. And I;m not claiming that the theory is deceptive. I said it's an outdated and inadequate representation of how evolution actually occurs.

Discoveries of new phenomena and alternative evolutionary mechanisms does not equate to automatically being subsumed into the theory. You and many others keep making this erroneous assumption.

And I wonder if you even read your own wiki link?
A couple of points to make note of:

Due to the increasing amount of evidence suggesting the importance of these phenomena for evolution (see below) molecular biologists such as Peter Gogarten have described horizontal gene transfer as "A New Paradigm for Biology".[31]

And this:

With regard to how horizontal gene transfer affects evolutionary theory (common descent, universal phylogenetic tree) Carl Woese says:

"What elevated common descent to doctrinal status almost certainly was the much later discovery of the universality of biochemistry, which was seemingly impossible to explain otherwise. But that was before horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which could offer an alternative explanation for the universality of biochemistry, was recognized as a major part of the evolutionary dynamic. In questioning the doctrine of common descent, one necessarily questions the universal phylogenetic tree. That compelling tree image resides deep in our representation of biology. But the tree is no more than a graphical device; it is not some a priori form that nature imposes upon the evolutionary process. It is not a matter of whether your data are consistent with a tree, but whether tree topology is a useful way to represent your data. Ordinarily it is, of course, but the universal tree is no ordinary tree, and its root no ordinary root. Under conditions of extreme HGT, there is no (organismal) "tree." Evolution is basically reticulate."[95]

If you are so well read and educated on the MES then why don't you offer up what you think it says and what you think is missing from it. I'm ready to discuss the technicalities of it, but I'm becoming more convinced of my earlier suspicions.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Perhaps you can take the time to read and digest what I've actually said. I've been quite clear. HGT is recognized, I know this, and already acknowledged that much in my last post. However NO - it is not included in the MES, and unless you can dig up the central tenets that include HGT and cite them here then I stand by my statement. And I;m not claiming that the theory is deceptive. I said it's an outdated and inadequate representation of how evolution actually occurs.

Gene transfer between species includes the formation of hybrid organisms and horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among bacteria. In medicine, this contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, as when one bacteria acquires resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species. Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the adzuki bean weevil Callosobruchus chinensis has occurred. An example of larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic bdelloid rotifers, which have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi and plants. Viruses can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across biological domains.

Its on the Wikipedia page on evolution under the heading 'gene flow'. I'll let you find it, there are quite a few reference links that may prove useful to you.

If you are so well read and educated on the MES then why don't you offer up what you think it says and what you think is missing from it. I'm ready to discuss the technicalities of it, but I'm becoming more convinced of my earlier suspicions.

You aren't ready to discuss technicalities, you are ignoring what is said while picking apart how it is said. Because that's easier than proving MES incorrect. I'm not interested in you testing my understanding to see if you can make me, and by fallacious extension MES, look foolish. Stop trying to trip me up and let's have an intelligent discussion. If you have intelligent questions, I'm willing to try to assist. If you are just here to score points for your team, then I have more rewarding games to play. Let's be reasonable or be done.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I get it...you are trying to make a hypothetical look like an absolute, the textual equivalent of a hologram or a projection.

No I am trying to show that a certain position is the best possible explanation, to simply show that God is a metaphysical possibility. This is all the theist has to do, to prove the God exist.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And Zeus is a metaphysical possibility. This is all the Zeusist has to do, to prove the Zeus exist.

a reply to: GetHyped

And Zeus is a metaphysical possibility. This is all the Zeusist has to do, to prove the Zeus exist.

You don't understand the argument. This attempt at a rebuttal shows it as clear as saying 2+2 = 5. Zeus is not a necessary entity. In fact we know that if Zeus existed he would have been a created being as he is the son of Cronus and Rhea. The God described in the ontological argument is not created, nor was there a time when he wasn't existing. Replacing God with Zeus here simply doesn't work. The premises don't hold true.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: GetHyped

Zeus is not a necessary entity

Yes he is. According to my religious views, he is eternal and created the universe and all in it. He also still lives on Mt. Olympus with his buddies.

My religious argument is just as valid and credible as yours.

a reply to: GetHyped

Yes he is. According to my religious views, he is eternal and created the universe and all in it. He also still lives on Mt. Olympus with his buddies.

Well you have redefined the classical definition of Zeus so you've changed which being from the one you were originally arguing for, and stolen a small part of the original story namely that he lives on Mt. Olympus. I mean there is nothing to take serious here as this is not actually your views. You are simply trying to apply the same characteristics of the being in the argument to a different name. The ontology of a thing you are making up at random is going to need to be well defined before we continue the discussion. Please explain what your version of Zeus is and I'll show you why the argument fails, or simply is a change of semantics...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

I get it...you are trying to make a hypothetical look like an absolute, the textual equivalent of a hologram or a projection.

No I am trying to show that a certain position is the best possible explanation, to simply show that God is a metaphysical possibility. This is all the theist has to do, to prove the God exist.

You are trying, certainly...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: GetHyped

Yes he is. According to my religious views, he is eternal and created the universe and all in it. He also still lives on Mt. Olympus with his buddies.

Well you have redefined the classical definition of Zeus so you've changed which being from the one you were originally arguing for, and stolen a small part of the original story namely that he lives on Mt. Olympus. I mean there is nothing to take serious here as this is not actually your views. You are simply trying to apply the same characteristics of the being in the argument to a different name. The ontology of a thing you are making up at random is going to need to be well defined before we continue the discussion. Please explain what your version of Zeus is and I'll show you why the argument fails, or simply is a change of semantics...

Special pleading, first regarding the claim that Zeus is unfit as a substitute for your deity, and second, regarding the definition of a chosen deity. Zeus, hotep, quetzlcoatl, cuchulain, and Krishna are all equally viable substitutes. You cannot escape this fact as we can and will use your own arguments just as effectively as you have applied them here, thus demonstrating their inadequacy. Your refusal to acknowledge as much is entirely beside the point. In concern to the second case of special pleading, you demand a rigorous definition of any substitute elected to replace your god when even your god lacks a rigorous definition and requires untested/unrecorded/unconfirmed/immeasurable properties to be even remotely viable from the outset. In a word, your alternative hypothesis to evolution is rigged from the ground up and is probably the most not-subtle example of sociopolitical magic trick ever seen in the history of creation myths. At least bronze age sheep herders had a good excuse for not knowing better. Your god is a piss poor illusionist, and if you are going to be superstitious at all, for evolutions sake, please be intelligent about it. Sorry, not sorry.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Well you have redefined the classical definition of Zeus so you've changed which being from the one you were originally arguing for, and stolen a small part of the original story namely that he lives on Mt. Olympus. I mean there is nothing to take serious here as this is not actually your views.

When you see the folly of my argument, you will see the folly of yours.