The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

a reply to: whereislogic

In order for a scientific theory to be published it needs to be accepted by peers within the scientific community.

In medical science the most accepted treatment for cancer is the theory that chemotherapy will destroy cancer cells and put cancer into remission. But it's not the only way to treat cancer, theres other accepted treatments.

Evolution is a theory that touches many fields of science, and even making it's way into astrophysics with cosmic evolution, the theory that we can start to trace evolution all the way to the atomic level and show how connected we really are with the universe.

But when we are talking about say, metallurgy or something, evolution isnt really associated with it, so yea basically all fields of science do accept it.

Once again, no one has ever successfully brought forward an antithesis to prove evolution doesnt happen, it just proves it does.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's misleading to suggest that there is any real question about the validity of evolutionary theory across any industry or field that has any relationship to it at all, even with any gaps that still exist in knowledge.

You are in the absolute tiniest of minorities (separate even from the vast majority of religious people), just above flat earthers in relevance, of people who don't understand the basics of evolution. Oh, and the question of origins?... doesn't effect the validity of evolution in any way whatsoever... but really, if you want to go there, the evidence is strongly pointing towards some type of natural genesis event for origins, either on earth or somewhere else... there is ZERO evidence AT ALL, for a creationist event... not a shred of evidence, ever, has been suggested, beyond opinion, disbelief and imagination, in support of creation. Please do suggest some real evidence that isn't just an appeal to complexity... I think it would be both awesome and amazing if you could! I am actually totally in support of you bringing this type of evidence to the table.

Oh, the irony!!! you're just too much!... all of the existing evidence, using INDUCTIVE REASONING, suggests a natural process (evolution) for the bits that we don't understand.

... unless you can offer a viable testable alternative that is!

So you can provide a repeatable test for special creation then?

lol

Ok, everyone keeps asking for evidence of evolution… Here’s some…

I watched a programme a few years back where they were dissecting a Giraffe. Was fascinating… this is the biggest thing I took from the programme:-

In humans, the vocal chord comes from the back of the voice box in the throat, down the neck, wraps around a ventricle of the heart, then travels all the way back up the neck and connects to the brain. This is clearly not the most efficient route and clearly would not be “designed” this way…

In Giraffe’s also, believe it or not, the chord travels all the way down the neck, round the heart and all the way back to the brain up the neck. As I am sure you will agree, had this been designed this would be a ludicrous route to take.

This all comes from our (Humans and Giraffe’s) common ancestor you see… When the first mammal slithered out of the oceans all those millions of years ago it was still effectively an amphibious creature, it just evolved/mutated enough to be able to breath air, it clearly gained an advantage from this transition… In fish this route that the chord takes IS the most economical route…

This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor… To claim that this anomaly is DESGINED this way is ridiculous…

Please discuss… PA

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
To claim that this anomaly is DESGINED this way is ridiculous…

and there ends the discussion.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly

This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor… To claim that this anomaly is DESGINED this way is ridiculous…

Please discuss… PA

First off, thanks for actually discussing real science in your own words. It's a breath of fresh air

The nerve you are talking about is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It loops under the aortic arch, making me think it may have some sort of mechanism for real-time monitoring of blood pressure.





1) its a branch of the vagus nerve - which is responsible for heart rate.
2) it connects to the vocal cords

it may be responsible for the reflexive yell or gasp that is released after a quick dramatic increase in heart rate. Having a neural highway directly from the aortic arch to the vocal cords would be the best way to wire such a function and make it as quick as possible. It could also function the opposite way: i.e. increasing your heart rate after raising your voice.

the recurrent laryngeal nerve controls the muscles of the larynx too, meaning it could be responsible for adjusting these muscles to maximize breathing (and consequently rendering talking to be difficult [i.e. trying to talk when you're out of breath]), or any other sort of function which would require a neural highway from the heart to the voicebox.

If this is the biggest "mistake" out of the approximate 100 billion neurons wired together in our brains with approximately 1 trillion supporting glial cells, I think that shows how well designed the nervous system is. Especially since the recurrent laryngeal nerve most definitely has a reason for looping through the aortic arch.

Ever wonder how the hell random mutations could have wired such intricate neural feedback loops?

originally posted by: cooperton

Ever wonder how the hell random mutations could have wired such intricate neural feedback loops?

Yeah, by gradual process of change and development over a period of a few hunderd millions years

originally posted by: Jubei42

originally posted by: cooperton

Ever wonder how the hell random mutations could have wired such intricate neural feedback loops?

Yeah, by gradual process of change and development over a period of a few hunderd millions years

That's some great faith you have there.

At that rate evolution would have to add about 1,000 neurons per year (100 billion neurons over 100 million years). Which is not happening.

a reply to: cooperton

Hahaha... sure Mister Appeal to Complexity.

Oh my god!... a whole thousand of neurons a year! You're right, way too complex!... must have been god! Considering that a new-born baby develops all of those 100 billion neurons in under a year, in traceable and testable natural processes... there is obviously no way that a natural process could have developed all those original neurons connections in 100 million years... especially considering that less complex creatures have less neurons... funny that.

Case closed! Cancel ALL ongoing evolution research immediately! Life is apparently too complex to ever be testable, so we should stop trying... in case we offend god that is!

Thank you for your divine insights! I'm going to go use them to develop a medicine and optimise a complex design.

Ohhh... I'm not even sure where to begin using creation concepts?... could you maybe point me in the right direction of how creation research is useful and can be used for real world applications?... (you have all the answers after all that, amazingly, that don't need to be tested!... thanks god)... or any creation research at all for that matter?

a reply to: cooperton

I don't think evolution works in terms of adding neurons per generation/period.
The complexity of the nerve system is just a result of life competing within the challenges of the environment

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: cooperton

I don't think evolution works in terms of adding neutrons per generation/period.
The complexity of the nerve system is just a result of life competing within the challenges of the environment

Which then begs the question, how would a mutated protein created by a random mutation be able to create a synchronized development of the neural system? Especially in such a way that would allow us emotions and rationalization abilities?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
Life is apparently too complex to ever be testable, so we should stop trying... in case we offend god that is!

Biomimicry replicates the design model of biological organisms. Take for example a hydrogen fuel cell emulating the function of a mitochondria... Separating the H+ from the electrons and then using this electrochemical gradient to generate energy. To believe such a machine could appear without intelligent input is absolutely irrational



This is not an appeal to complexity, because as I said before, I am not claiming that anyone doesn't understand it (which is what the fallacy requires). My point is that these complex systems require an inventor to be made, because random chance cannot create these intricate systems.

a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: cooperton
This is not an appeal to complexity, because as I said before, I am not claiming that anyone doesn't understand it (which is what the fallacy requires). My point is that these complex systems require an inventor to be made, because random chance cannot create these intricate systems.

... but you are claiming that we don't understand it. By saying that god did it, without showing a mechanism for how that may have happened, it is quite literally you claiming that we, as a collective, don't and can never understand it... so yes, you are claiming we don't understand it... which makes it a perfect example of the fallacy! Q.E.D.

It's quite phenomenal how you can contradict yourself in the same sentence, and not see the error in your logic.

The bolded bit above is a textbook Appeal to Complexity... because you don't know that, and have never proved that... you need to provide evidence to pull yourself out of the realm of fallacy.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Appeal to complexity fallacy: Concluding that because you don't understand something, it must not be true, it's improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.

Logical Form:

I don't understand argument X.
Therefore, argument X cannot be true / is flawed / improbable.



We understand the mitochondria very well, so I am not appealing to complexity. We know it works almost identically to a hydrogen fuel cell. So to follow a train of logic we can come up with two premises, if they are true, then the conclusion of the two premises must also be true.

So:

1) Mitochondria are hydrogen fuel cells
2) hydrogen fuel cells cannot be created without an inventor
3) Mitochondria were created by an Inventor

You have to prove either (1) or (2) wrong in order to refute the conclusion (3)

a reply to: cooperton

No... (I don't have to prove you wrong (you do a great job of that yourself)... you need to prove you are right!... burden of proof is on you for that one!)... you have to prove any of 1,2 or 3 to show there is a creator... otherwise it is an APPEAL TO COMPLEXITY.

You literally highlighted that in your own post!!! It may be "almost identical" (funny how humans can learn from natural process, and design machines based on that knowledge)... but it isn't "actually identical", so your understanding of mitochondria is dubious at best, and your example is flawed. The cognitive dissonance is astounding!

Jeebus

a reply to: puzzlesphere

I don't care about "Appeal To Complexity" you are over using that tired phrase and it isn't even applicable to cooperton, he clearly knows and fully explains his points.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding!

It's like he is speaking another language you will never be able to understand, so right back at you for your own cognitive dissonance.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Of course you don't care about it, because you are being dishonest, and don't care about logically sound arguments.

It's totally applicable... in his last post he misrepresented what mitochondria is by suggesting it is "almost identical" (called it a hydrogen fuel cell... which it isn't) to a human designed machine, then concluded that god had to have done it because human machines are too complex to self-configure naturally.

If that is not a direct Appeal to Complexity, then what is it? (I keep linking to the definition so you can judge for yourself that's what he's doing, or refute my claim if you can).

So yes... applicable.

I am not over using it at all... he is over using it... it is the basis of almost all his arguments... literally every post of his has expressed an appeal to complexity. I am just highlighting it.

Want me to stop highlighting it? All he has to do is stop using the erroneous argument typology, and I'll never highlight it again. Notice that I don't say it to other people as much? That's because they aren't claiming that fallacy... cooperton is... every single time.

So yeah... should I just accept his baloney as you are? Or am I alright to highlight his errors?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Oh... and you're right... I will never be able to understand the language of flawed arguments, because they are, by definition, not logically sound so not understandable within a logical framework.

I can follow his proposed logic (it really isn't that complicated) if I accept, without evidence, the premise that there is a god who constantly tinkers with the universe, but i don't accept that... at least not his version of it... especially without some evidence to back up his extraordinary claim... and that is really the crux of the biscuit.

Cooperton's language only works in his only head, based on his internal belief system, with his indoctrinated premise... when communicated and confronted with facts, his arguments crumble.

He just can't accept that his premise may be wrong. For him, he "knows" there is a god, so evolution can't be correct... I have no such arrogance.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

in his last post he misrepresented what mitochondria is by suggesting it is "almost identical" (called it a hydrogen fuel cell... which it isn't) to a human designed machine

Mitochondria work very similarly to a hydrogen fuel cell. Mitochondria use H2 passed through the Kreb's cycle being carried by the proteins NAD and FAD to deliver electrons and protons to the electron transport chain of the mitochondrial inner membrane to create an electrochemical gradient:



This is what hydrogen fuel cells do:



It's the same equation too. In the electron transport chain, O2 receives the electrons and H+ atoms from the the inner membrane space to form water (exactly like a hydrogen fuel cell). So yes, mitochondria behaves much like a hydrogen fuel cell, or more accurately, a hydrogen fuel cell replicates the function of a mitochondrion. An Inventor is required, because hydrogen fuel cells do not make them selves.

Should I continue or are you just going to blindly argue everything I say?

a reply to: cooperton

He will just use his his mental/emotional response of "Appeal to Complexity" when it doesn't even apply....fake applications of terms. Or maybe just maybe he might decide to address the actual science you have presented.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes!... please do... I assume you are going to continue... and show me some actual evidence?

You haven't shown anything yet other than pictures of human designed machines... and made some vague analogies between natural and mechanical functions. A vandergraph creates lightning therefore all lightning must not occur naturally and be created... right?

Pointing at a human designed machine (which has many, many, many differences to a natural organelle), and saying nature must also be designed, is not evidence. It is opinion. There is no proof there is a creator in your post beyond your desire for it to be so. Once again, your disbelief about the complexity of the natural world developing naturally, does not constitute evidence.

It is, by definition an Appeal to Complexity. A fallacy... a dead-end argument that is demonstrably false.

How are you not getting this?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

HAHAHA... what science?

Let's run this through the scientific method and see!:

1. 1. ☑ there is an observation - life is complex ☑
   
2. 2. ☑ kind of have a Question, (can't really be answered, so not a great question, but...) - Are mitochondria designed by a creator because we see similarities with human designed machines? ☑ (kind of)
   
3. 3. ☑ research; some unsupported correlations drawn between natural processes and human designed processes, and observations of a couple of other peoples images of machines - ☑ (pretty flimsy observations... so barely... probably should be a ☒... but I'll give it a ☑ anyway)
   
4. 4. ☒ hypothesis; ☒ (no hypothesis has been offered)
   
5. 5. ☒ experiment; ☒ (no experiment, or a methodology has been offered... guess there can't be an experiment if there isn't a hypothesis)
   
6. 6. ☒ analyze data from experiment; ☒ (oh)
   
7. 7. ☑ draw conclusion; ☑ (a conclusion has definitely been drawn... not sure on what data it's based though... since you know, no repeatable test)
   
8. 8. ☒ repeat; ☒ (no repeatable experiment... but I guess if you want to be colloquial you could repeat the fallacies again and again)
   

That would be a fail ☒ at the scientific method. Did that address his "science" enough for you?