Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Irreducible complication

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by Castenea   » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:29 am

Castenea
Captain of the List

Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:21 pm
Location: MD

Creation vs. evolution. I have long come to detest these debates. The logical fallacies by both sides are inane.

Some of the more common problems include:
Using theories that are over 50 years old. More recent research indicates that not all inheritance is done by DNA and that much of so-called "junk DNA" is useful.

Assuming that the fossil record is far more complete than it is. Fossilization is a non-random process, and older fossils are rarer than newer.

Creationists claim Global Warming is a hoax therefor they deny science. Michael Mann has infected CAGW science with a lot of bogus stats, but what does that have to do with evolution of Hadrosaurs?
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by C. O. Thompson   » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:46 pm

C. O. Thompson
Captain of the List

Posts: 695
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Thompson, CT USA

Saw this and thought some might understand why I think this could shed some light on the question ;)


https://www.facebook.com/rickygervais/v ... 203926073/
Just my 2 ₡ worth
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by C. O. Thompson   » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:54 pm

C. O. Thompson
Captain of the List

Posts: 695
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Thompson, CT USA

C. O. Thompson wrote:Saw this and thought some might understand why I think this could shed some light on the question ;)


https://www.facebook.com/rickygervais/v ... 203926073/



How about this??

https://www.facebook.com/therealskeptic ... 833696377/
Just my 2 ₡ worth
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by C. O. Thompson   » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:59 pm

C. O. Thompson
Captain of the List

Posts: 695
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Thompson, CT USA

C. O. Thompson wrote:
C. O. Thompson wrote:Saw this and thought some might understand why I think this could shed some light on the question ;)


https://www.facebook.com/rickygervais/v ... 203926073/



How about this??

https://www.facebook.com/therealskeptic ... 833696377/


or this

https://www.facebook.com/therealskeptic ... 554690105/
Just my 2 ₡ worth
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by DDHv   » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:43 am

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

The E wrote:I know this is futile, but....

DDHv, in order to be an accepted scientific theory that supercedes evolution, ID needs to do two things:

1. Make a testable prediction that cannot be explained using the theory of evolution.
2. Provide experimental and testable proof for the mechanisms by which creation happens.

snip

BTW, I'm a contrarian by nature. Given any consensus, I look at the assumptions and evidence to see if any other possibilities could possibly exist. Is it possible you have noticed any evidence of this?


That's not what you're doing though. You are strongly dogmatic and unwilling or unable to confront the possibility that you are wrong.

My objection is to the idea that one needs a better theory in order to reject a particular theory. Point 1, agreed. Why in the world do we need to move from one theory to another? Can't falsification by observation (experimental or field) or bad logic cause a theory to be rejected?

I assume that I am wrong somewhere. Like most people, I have assumptions, and am not willing to change them without solid evidence. The fun is in trying to find out where the errors exist. I don't accept any theory as evidence, only as a suggestion as to where to look for evidence.

For a good example of how science should be done, look at the surviving soft tissues in dinosaur fossils situation. Discovered and reported. Reactions: 1) false, 2) inaccurate due to bacterial or other contamination, 3) a preservative element, and 4) evidence that the time element is wrong. You can estimate which point of view caused each reaction to be preferred by different people.

1) was reasonable - IIRC, two articles read reported that large amounts of published papers could (over 40%, one article, over 50% the other IIRC. I didn't look up the original research, so cannot judge their sampling methods) not have their evidence replicated. Since there are over 30 reports of soft tissue discovery, this can be dropped.

2) with our current ability to test for various chemicals, this should be decidable by what is found. For example, if any bacteria produce collagen, I haven't read about it. Does anyone know more? IIRC, work on this is ongoing, but I don't know the current results.

3) The discoverer is following this one up. She has shown that high concentrations of hemoglobin have at least some preservative effect. The young earth creationists note that the concentrations used are very high and a few years is not adequate baseline time. They speculate this could produce a few thousand years of preservation. Personally I would like to learn about an experiment with various concentrations, to be observed over a span of decades. Ditto with other proposed ideas on this one. This is how science should be done.

Using experiments is good science. So is pointing out that more observation is needed.

4) this speculation should be lumped with all other dating problems. Personally, in dating problems, things like pleochroic radiohalos, the erosion of base rock covered by sedimentary rock, the shortage of hills, valleys, and gullies in almost all sedimentary strata, or the erratic results of radioactive dating tests and such like are worth more attention.

Speculation is a needed part of science, or we would never have new theories to test. The bad part is when those with one POV use theories to demonize those with opposing POVs.

Isaac Asimov wrote an article noting that Lavoisier used other scientist's experiments for his oxygen combustion theory without attributing them, all of whom continued holding to the phlogiston theory.
IIRC:
"Even chemists can have a slow burn." Isaac Asimov

The ones that give me a slow burn are those who fake things. Haeckel's drawings, Piltdown man, the one recently published in National Geographic, Clarence Darrow at the Scopes trial, etc. I don't know if NG published a retraction. Those who examine the Scopes trial deeper than "Inherit the Wind" know about the agreement between Darrow and Bryan for each to cross examine the other. Darrow cross examined Bryan, then pleaded Scopes guilty, evading the bargain. Neither Darrow nor any of the scientists who provided affidavits were cross questioned. This is hyped as a victory of evolution over creation, but is a victory of lawyering over science.

The person with a different POV is critical to science because their speculations produce theories you would never consider. Observation, whether experimental or field, should not turned down on the basis of any theory, only when it cannot be replicated. This does not mean you need to accept their POV.

Example: Steve Austin, PhD, reported that Nautiloid fossils in the basal layer of the Red Wall limestone are roughly 1 per four square meters, with about one in seven being vertical, falsifying the idea of slow limestone formation:

http://youngearth.com/Grand-Canyon-nautiloids

It seem unlikely that any old earth geologist would think of rapid limestone formation. Many won't accept it as being possible, even with fossil evidence! They also don't pay attention to the size of the water flow needed to make the sandstone layers in the Golf of Mexico tapped by the oil companies. Thus certain other experiments and field observations will not be done, nor the implications considered. At least by those with that POV.

I will continue to have a slow burn at the way many people claiming to be scientists use the scholastic methods of appeal to consensus and authority instead of the hard work of observation using experiments and field work
:shock:
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by The E   » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:58 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

DDHv wrote:My objection is to the idea that one needs a better theory in order to reject a particular theory. Point 1, agreed. Why in the world do we need to move from one theory to another? Can't falsification by observation (experimental or field) or bad logic cause a theory to be rejected?


Yes, it can, if what is observed flatly contradicts predictions made by the existing theory. No such observations have been made with regards to evolution yet.
You also mention bad logic. You really shouldn't, as Creationism is riddled with it.

I assume that I am wrong somewhere. Like most people, I have assumptions, and am not willing to change them without solid evidence.


Well, you're also not willing to change them when presented with solid evidence, hence me calling you a dogmatic.

The fun is in trying to find out where the errors exist. I don't accept any theory as evidence, only as a suggestion as to where to look for evidence.


Theories aren't evidence. Experiments and observations are evidence, and Creationism has, so far, not offered any that would constitute compelling proof.

Using experiments is good science. So is pointing out that more observation is needed.


So, when are Creationists going to start their experiments?

Speculation is a needed part of science, or we would never have new theories to test. The bad part is when those with one POV use theories to demonize those with opposing POVs.


Ooooh, spooky scary words. "Demonize" is such a nice turn of phrase.

Problem is, Creationism is still not science. It speculates, yes, but it doesn't confirm and it sure as hell doesn't predict. All it is is a few people stubbornly clinging to beliefs that have long since been disproven using actual methods of scientific inquiry and crying foul whenever it is pointed out to them that they do not meet the evidentiary standards necessary to challenge a theory as successful as the theory of evolution.

The ones that give me a slow burn are those who fake things. Haeckel's drawings, Piltdown man, the one recently published in National Geographic, Clarence Darrow at the Scopes trial, etc. I don't know if NG published a retraction. Those who examine the Scopes trial deeper than "Inherit the Wind" know about the agreement between Darrow and Bryan for each to cross examine the other. Darrow cross examined Bryan, then pleaded Scopes guilty, evading the bargain. Neither Darrow nor any of the scientists who provided affidavits were cross questioned. This is hyped as a victory of evolution over creation, but is a victory of lawyering over science.


What on earth are you talking about? Science isn't decided in a courtroom, and whatever shenanigans happened back then have (IMHO) no bearing on whether or not Creationism is a delusion or an actual scientific theory.

The person with a different POV is critical to science because their speculations produce theories you would never consider. Observational evidence, whether experimental or field, should not turned down on the basis of a theory, only it cannot be replicated. This does not mean you need to accept their POV.


Problem is that Creationists frequently argue from flawed starting positions that ignore the sum of knowledge we have in a given field (For example, there was this one killer argument against evolution that went "Evolutionary processes need energy, and there were no sources of that on the primordial earth", completely ignoring among other things that the Sun is an actual source of energy). More often than not, the observations Creationists make and which they hold to be evidence against evolution (such as the whole irreducible complexity nonsense, or your misunderstandings of probability) are based on flawed understanding of the underlying theory.

It's one thing to criticize evolution. It's certainly not a bad thing in and of itself. But Creationists (and, by extension, you) do so while being ignorant of what it is they're criticizing. It's akin to someone trying to disprove Relativity without understanding it.

Example: Steve Austin, PhD, reported that Nautiloid fossils in the basal layer of the Red Wall limestone are roughly 1 per four square meters, with about one in seven being vertical, falsifying the idea of slow limestone formation:

http://youngearth.com/Grand-Canyon-nautiloids

It seem unlikely that any old earth geologist would think of rapid limestone formation. Many won't accept it as being possible, even with existing fossil evidence! And this means that certain other experiments and field observations will not be done, nor the implications considered. At least by those with that POV.


You know Steve Austin has no factual basis for his claims, right?

You wanting to find the truth for yourself is admirable. That you are ignoring actual, accepted research just because it is accepted is not, neither is your use of sources who are not interested in finding things that might contradict them.

I will continue to have a slow burn at the way many people claiming to be scientists use the scholastic methods of appeal to consensus and authority instead of the hard work of observation in experiments and field


Again, if that is true, why in my cat's name are you listening to Creationists? They do not do experiments. They do not do field research. The most they ever get up to is writing long blog posts about how the inner ear is supposedly too complex to be a product of evolution or some other pieces of armchair criticism of research.
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by The E   » Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:03 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Here's something I found for a post in another thread:

A comprehensive critique of Dembski's ideas. It is, and I am sorry about this, not written from an "evolutionist" standpoint, but rather from a mathematical and information theory one (but given that Dembski himself is not a biologist, this seems fair to me)
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by DDHv   » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:24 pm

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

The E wrote:
snip

I will continue to have a slow burn at the way many people claiming to be scientists use the scholastic methods of appeal to consensus and authority instead of the hard work of observation in experiments and field


Again, if that is true, why in my cat's name are you listening to Creationists? They do not do experiments. They do not do field research. The most they ever get up to is writing long blog posts about how the inner ear is supposedly too complex to be a product of evolution or some other pieces of armchair criticism of research.

My objection to accepting evolution comes primarily from the fossil gaps. There are missing classes and orders between the phylums, not just occasional missing links. Secondarily, it comes from the use of disproven assumptions, such as the pre biotic soup idea which cannot take place when there is much oxygen. I look at the creationist papers because they seem to be the ones assuming these things might be actual, rather than chance results. I also assume they will be making errors - everyone does.

It is understandable that assumptions preferred by different people vary: look at the differences between atheist/agnostics, muslims (who are taught that God should be obeyed, but cannot be trusted), and those who believe God is so consistent that His purity requires "But he was wounded for our transgression, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:5>6 before He can forgive and stay honest.

I assume that failure to work out any way to test a coherent theory that refers to some aspect of reality is due to laziness, lack of creativity, or dependence on other theories more often than lack of observations. Fantasy statements which refer only to other statements, cannot be tested.

Re: Steve Austin

From: You know Steve Austin has no factual basis for his claims, right?

Austin supports his ideas by reporting on the orientations of just twelve nautiloid fossils.


From: Steven A. Austin and Kurt P. Wise "Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona":Geologic Society of American Abstracts with Programs, Vol.27, no. 6, 1995, p.A-369

Seventy-six nautiloids (Order Orthocerida) were located and measured at Nautiloid Canyon, a side canyon of the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

This seems to be the source of the number twelve.

From:

It would take a great deal of space to discuss fully Austin’s ideas about this interesting occurrence. Such a discussion would have to consider the following issues: (i) Is the number of nautiloids exaggerated and is extrapolation to such a large area justified? (ii) Is the interpretation of a mass-kill event warranted? (iii) Why are such fossil concentrations usually attributed to accumulation over long intervals during which sedimentation was restricted? (iv) Is the mechanism of a high velocity “hyperconcentrated flow” that moved enormous distances over a low gradient probable, and is it required by the structural and textural nature of the deposit? Austin knows these occurrences better than anyone and should answer these questions.

I have examined these nautiloids in only a few localities within the Grand Canyon National Park, to which he was kind enough to direct me, where I noted that a nautiloid fossil occurred about once every 4 or 5 square meters.

This notes the existence of at least a few other localities. We should do more observation, with solid photographs, etc., and less assumptions. This is true for everyone! The net provides room for storage of many observations. Articles discussing theory should always reference such storage locations
:x

From: http://qz.com/638059/many-scientific-tr ... picks=true

Researchers have recreated prominent studies from several scientific fields and come up with wildly different results.

I've concluded that most theories are speculations. I think the best that can be assigned to any theory unless observations solidly disprove it, is some probability. Even theories thought to be solidly established have had changes. Euclid's geometry turned out to be a special case - for uncurved geometries. Modification of the fifth postulate produced non Euclidean geometries for closed curve and open curve types. The Greek philosophers made too much of theories, and not enough of testing them, although they did provide some valuable insights.

I assume that we are just as good as the ancients at getting things wrong. The problem is finding which assumptions can be dis proven, partly because no axiom I know about can be directly addressed. Thus the work of close comparison between consequences and reality is needed, and not at all easy!
:|

PS AFAICS, the article concerning Dembski's work dislikes his conclusions based on theory, not observations. D's work also seems to be based on theory, rather than observations. This classifies them both as speculations which need to have means of testing by reality. Both provide possible supporting ideas, neither seems to have found a critical assumption with evidence. IMHO, which is as likely as anyone else to be wrong.
:shock:

OTOH: http://www.evoinfo.org/publications/
lists 33 articles published in engineering and other hard science magazines. There hasn't been time to read them, so no comment on how the NFL (No Free Lunch) theory work applies or whether they have adequate observations backing them up from me
:o
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by The E   » Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:41 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

DDHv wrote:My objection to accepting evolution comes primarily from the fossil gaps. There are missing classes and orders between the phylums, not just occasional missing links.


But you must, must know that due to the way in whivh fossils are created and discovered, there can never be a complete fossil record of all the beasties in the world.

Secondarily, it comes from the use of disproven assumptions, such as the pre biotic soup idea which cannot take place when there is much oxygen.


Have you heard of the Great Oxygenation Event? We have geological evidence that free oxygen was rare to nonexistant during the time period where single-celled life developed.

I look at the creationist papers because they seem to be the ones assuming these things might be actual, rather than chance results. I also assume they will be making errors - everyone does.


Creationism, and this cannot be repeated enough, is not interested in finding the truth because it already presupposes a result and ignores anything that doesn't fit with its presumptions. That doesn't seem to be very scientific to me.

I assume that failure to work out any way to test a coherent theory that refers to some aspect of reality is due to laziness, lack of creativity, or dependence on other theories more often than lack of observations. Fantasy statements which refer only to other statements, cannot be tested.


I am glad you agree that creationism is bullshit.
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by Annachie   » Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:44 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

DDhv, I think by the way you use the term that you should find a dictionary and look up what a scientific theory actually is.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...