Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Irreducible complication

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by Daryl   » Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:36 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2175
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Full credit to DDHv, for pushing on regardless of how often his theories are knocked down. To me the arguments are reminiscent of the computer adage GI GO. He takes an illogical assumption then uses impressive intellectual skills to try and prove it. Hopeless task but kudos for trying.
A real world example is the SUV, an excellent answer to an illogical question. Take a well engineered sedan or hatch, make it fatter and heavier, with a higher centre of gravity, all to no purpose as it still is useless off road, then try to make its dynamics as good as the original.
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:42 am

gcomeau
Commodore

Posts: 950
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

The E wrote:Oh, and one other thing: If it turned out that Abiogenesis is in fact impossible to prove, I would have no problem accepting a different theory.
But what if it turns out Abiogenesis truly is reproducible: Would you change your tune? Or would you continue to insist that it's all way to improbable to ever have happened in the real world?


Side note.... the odds abiogenesis is irreproducible in the lab have shrunk quite near to zero these days...

https://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v7 ... .2202.html
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by DDHv   » Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:55 pm

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

The E wrote:snip

John D. Sutherland, “Studies on the origin of life — the end of the beginning,” Nature Reviews Chemistry, Vol. 1:12 (2017) assumes a naturalistic origin for life, and discusses work done on this basis. He puts forth work that includes multiple accurate intelligent intervention, but assumes that this is evidence for origin of life without such intervention.

From: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/origi ... y-to-luca/

Aside from the fact that Sutherland’s model refutes the ever-popular “hydrothermal vent” hypothesis for the origin of life, don’t miss the last sentence where he commits the “burden of proof” logical fallacy. This basically says that if you view his scenario as “unacceptable” then you can’t dismiss it unless you can produce a scenario that’s better or “equally productive.” This is obviously fallacious: the merits of his hypothesis do not fall or rise on the ability of a given critic to provide a more “productive” explanation. After all, what if the entire project — the attempt to produce biomolecules in the absence of living organisms under natural earthlike conditions — is impossible? If that’s the case, then all explanations of prebiotic synthesis are ultimately doomed to fail, including our “best” attempts. Perhaps the fact that he ends on this note hints that he knows his case isn’t really all that strong.


Here's the thing though: Even if abiogenesis turns out to be not reproducible in a lab, it doesn't mean that your god is the origin of life, or that "intelligent design" was involved in it. ID offers one alternative explanation (even if it is completely unscientific and not supported by what we do know), but it's not the only one.


Please list others not involving intelligence directly or indirectly.

Dismissal of ID work on the basis of the "burden of proof" logical fallacy ignores the use of probability assessment of evidence against or for a given idea. Many people are like those who dismiss the idea that the Bible can have accurate prophecies by ignoring the existence of Israel, without even being able to name one other people who have been exiles from their homeland for many generations but have returned to it.

The bible mixes apocryphal history, moral fables and outright fiction liberally throughout. That you're able to prove that some things in it actually happened through outside sources doesn't mean that the rest of it is any more true.

snip



From: The quest for cosmic justice, by Thomas Sowell.

The arrogant vision of an anointed elite comes not from the simple fact that it is a vision, but from the sense of themselves as morally anointed among those who hold this particular vision. That vision makes that particular belief possible and therefore becomes a vision which its devotees are loath to relinquish, even in the face of evidence against the views that sustain their exaltation. Desperately ingenious efforts to evade particular evidence, or to denigrate objective facts in general, are all consistent with their heavily emotional investment in their vision, which is ostensibly about the well-being of others but is ultimately about themselves.


I point out that the work of Sutherland and others requires the input of much intelligence even in the laboratory. There is no attempt to provide evidence that it is at all probable to get even these comparatively simple OOL results outside the lab without the input of intelligence.

I note that Israel exists, as predicted in the Bible. No attempt is made to provide any counter example of another people who have been exiled from their homeland for even five generations, and have returned to it. Instead a statement, "The bible mixes apocryphal history, moral fables and outright fiction liberally throughout." is given without supporting details.

The Bible also predicts a time of trouble so great that if God didn't limit it, no flesh would be alive. Weapons capable of doing this were produced only during and after WWII. It predicts an economy in which no one can buy or sell without the symbol of the dictator on their body. The computers able to enforce this have only been developed during and after WWII. It predicts a situation in which people worldwide are able to view a particular event. The development of television and world wide connections is also historically recent. It predicts an army of two hundred million killing a large fraction of Earth's population at a time when the world's population was of that order of magnitude.

It also makes sense to watch the trends of evidence. I once read something from the 1800s which listed a hundred places they thought the Bible was inaccurate. Over ninety of those have been shown wrong, and the rest are still being researched.

It used to be thought that protoplasm was simple. Our present evidence otherwise: In addition to DNA coding for the production of varied RNA strands, recent years have turned up the splicing code, epigenetics, the histone code, inbuilt DNA repair, and transcription factories.

Some simplicity
:!:
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 gcomeau   » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:59 pm

gcomeau
Commodore

Posts: 950
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

DDHv wrote:
Here's the thing though: Even if abiogenesis turns out to be not reproducible in a lab, it doesn't mean that your god is the origin of life, or that "intelligent design" was involved in it. ID offers one alternative explanation (even if it is completely unscientific and not supported by what we do know), but it's not the only one.


Please list others not involving intelligence directly or indirectly.

Dismissal of ID work on the basis of the "burden of proof" logical fallacy ignores the use of probability assessment of evidence against or for a given idea.



Are you simply incapable of learning?

ID has no proposed mechanisms for how it occurred whatsoever. None. HOW THE HELL do you perform a probability assessment of the odds of a totally undefined event happening?

As has been pointed out to you before, no matter how long you might think the odds of evolution are, the comparison is still "improbable event based on real natural phenonena" vs "nothing whatsoever beyond vague handwaving". Evolution wins.



ID. Is. Not. A Theory.

ID. Is. Not. A. Hypothesis.

ID. Is. A. Fable.
Top
Re: Irreducible complication
Post by The E   » Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:19 am

The E
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1541
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Paderborn, Germany

DDHv wrote:He puts forth work that includes multiple accurate intelligent intervention, but assumes that this is evidence for origin of life without such intervention.


Congratulations on you and other ID-people for noticing that that paper was flawed. As have a number of other Origin-of-life researchers.

Finding flaws in a flawed paper doesn't invalidate the entire theory.

The article you cite gives ID-tainted takedowns of the results, when it is quite clear that under traditional interpretations the results are invalid as well. This is not an affirmation of ID.

ID still remains to be an unscientific approach; If you posit that intelligence has intervened in the formation of life, you also need to explain the mechanisms by which that happened.

Again: Saying "God did it" is a fundamentally unscientific position. At that point, you might as well abandon science entirely, as there is no new knowledge to be found anywhere.

Dismissal of ID work on the basis of the "burden of proof" logical fallacy ignores the use of probability assessment of evidence against or for a given idea. Many people are like those who dismiss the idea that the Bible can have accurate prophecies by ignoring the existence of Israel, without even being able to name one other people who have been exiles from their homeland for many generations but have returned to it.


ID does nothing to establish that its primary assumption is true. You point to the bible and say "this is true", and go from there; Since we know how the bible was created (by human writers and editors over multiple centuries, cultures and languages), the assertion that it contains complete truth doesn't hold water. You can claim divine inspiration all day long, but until you can show divine inspiration actually happening under scientific conditions, you're not basing your assumptions on facts.

The bible, at its best, is a stopped clock when it comes to prophecies and its declarations of what physical reality is. If you find something true in it, it's happenstance, not proof that the rest of the text is true as well.


From: The quest for cosmic justice, by Thomas Sowell.

The arrogant vision of an anointed elite comes not from the simple fact that it is a vision, but from the sense of themselves as morally anointed among those who hold this particular vision. That vision makes that particular belief possible and therefore becomes a vision which its devotees are loath to relinquish, even in the face of evidence against the views that sustain their exaltation. Desperately ingenious efforts to evade particular evidence, or to denigrate objective facts in general, are all consistent with their heavily emotional investment in their vision, which is ostensibly about the well-being of others but is ultimately about themselves.


You are aware, I hope, that that passage applies to you just as well. ID proponents are past masters at "Desperately ingenious efforts to evade particular evidence, or to denigrate objective facts in general, are all consistent with their heavily emotional investment in their vision".

I point out that the work of Sutherland and others requires the input of much intelligence even in the laboratory. There is no attempt to provide evidence that it is at all probable to get even these comparatively simple OOL results outside the lab without the input of intelligence.


So the lab experiments are set up to recreate conditions that we believe obtained during Earth's planetary evolution. If these experiments produce negative results, you are vindicated because obviously abiogenesis is hogwash. If they produce positive results, you are vindicated because obviously this means that such conditions could never exist in reality (after all, this was just a lab experiment).

Are you even aware of how willing to dismiss experimental evidence that doesn't agree with your pet theories you are?

I note that Israel exists, as predicted in the Bible. No attempt is made to provide any counter example of another people who have been exiled from their homeland for even five generations, and have returned to it. Instead a statement, "The bible mixes apocryphal history, moral fables and outright fiction liberally throughout." is given without supporting details.


The bible is a stopped clock. Its various predictions have been mapped by true believers onto any number of real-world events, which has always resulted in failure to make subsequent predictions work.

Incidentally, did you know that the bible predicts that the rapture will very definitely happen this year?

(Okay, the IDiots over at Answers in Genesis are a wee bit skeptical about the whole thing, but what do they know, right?)

The Bible also predicts a time of trouble so great that if God didn't limit it, no flesh would be alive.


Please show positive proof of god intervening to prevent major wars.

Weapons capable of doing this were produced only during and after WWII.


You know, "flesh" can stand for many things in that passage, depending on translation.

It predicts an economy in which no one can buy or sell without the symbol of the dictator on their body. The computers able to enforce this have only been developed during and after WWII.


I don't know, all that passage talks about is a mark "on their right hand or on their forehead"; this is pretty doable even with stone age tech. Like, there's no real room for interpretation there.

It predicts a situation in which people worldwide are able to view a particular event. The development of television and world wide connections is also historically recent. It predicts an army of two hundred million killing a large fraction of Earth's population at a time when the world's population was of that order of magnitude.


And?

It also makes sense to watch the trends of evidence. I once read something from the 1800s which listed a hundred places they thought the Bible was inaccurate. Over ninety of those have been shown wrong, and the rest are still being researched.


And once more for good measure: The bible is a stopped clock. You can point to any number of things it wrote down correctly, and it still won't make "God exists" any more provable.

It used to be thought that protoplasm was simple. Our present evidence otherwise: In addition to DNA coding for the production of varied RNA strands, recent years have turned up the splicing code, epigenetics, the histone code, inbuilt DNA repair, and transcription factories.

Some simplicity
:!:


Still simpler than "There is a god who is exactly as the bible describes him and who caused everything to exist yet is completely indetectable by human senses and instruments".
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...