Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[Autodidact]

You seem to be missing the point that the universe came into existence from outside the universe, meaning the laws of physics, including the 1st LoT does not apply to the the causal agent that exists outside the universe. Your very point proves mine.

Please provide evidence that the 1ts law of thermodynamics does not apply to the causal agent from outside the universe. Give peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject, or retract this statement.

Please provide peer reviewed articles substantiating that it is not correct, or retract your demand for retraction.

It may be that universes beyond our own have the same laws of physics. However, since they are not measurable (consult Einstein on this) we cannot know. If we don't know, and can't know what laws of physics might pertain to realities beyond this space time envelop, we cannot assert that our laws of thermodynamics would apply, much less call them laws in such universes, hence my statement.

Nor that they don't. If there is any such thing, we would have to remain agnostic concerning it. Therefore, your statement that such laws do not apply cannot be sustained.

[FinalEnigma]

you are simply replacing one of the turtles with God and declaring an end to the problem. you haven't actually solved it. it would be lovely if you could find a causal agent that is itself uncaused, but you don't have one. You are simply declaring that since you would like something to be there to end the endless regression loop (that may or may not be there), God must be there.

Call it what you will, but unless you wish your argument to be based on a logical absurdity resolving itself in a vicious infinite regression, you are left with the need to arrive at a prime mover, itself uncaused.

Or, as an intellectually honest person, I'm left saying I don't know. However, I don't know does not equal God.

further, you are proposing the problem that the universe is too fine tuned and complex to have came about on it's own, and solving that problem by positing an even more complex and fine tuned creator for that universe, that somehow avoid the very same problem. There is no factual basis for this assumption. You are making the leap from "we don't know how this worked" to "it's impossible for it to have worked, so God did it." without any rational basis.

First, God as creator is hardly more complex than level 2 - 4 multiverse theory so I think they will fall to Occam's razor before God does.

I'm not speaking of the theory here, I'm speaking of the entity.

you have two options:
1) God is more complex than anything he created, thus making him even less likely than the universe itself, or

2) God is less complex than what he created, therefore less complex things can create more complex things.

which do you believe to be true?

Second, you are mistating my argument. I am simply saying that based on our experience in this space time, things that are created by minds have characterics that are different from things created by random processes.

than totally random processes sure (they are tuned to a purpose), however, something like natural selection thwarts this. There was a computer program designed to make random changes to an antenna until it got one that worked - it made a better antenna than any human could. can we know that there isn't some kind of selection process for universes?

As far as lacking a factual basis, your apparent belief that things showing intricate design can still come about through purely random unguided processes is a statement of faith, not reason.

now this is pure nonsense. I believe no such thing! pure randomness will get you nowhere. randomness with a selection process just might(like into homo-sapiens).

I don't think I am arguing from incredulity, but if you wish to debate that, which is the more incredulous statement:

1. Consciousness is the result of unconscious unguided processes, or
2. Conscriousness is the result of a first cause that is itself conscious.

You seem to believe the former, and I believe that is an incredible supposition since it presumes that an effect can be greater than its cause, although I wouldn't demean you by accusing you of arguments from incredulity.

Yes, you are. It seems you do not understand what the argument from incredulity is. The argument from incredulity is the idea that because something seems so utterly incredible, it couldn't have been true.

Kind of, but not quite. The argument from incredulity depends on a lack of imagination from the audience to make the argument fly. You cannot imagine God, and your argument depends on other people not being able to imagine God. I am not so burdened. If the weight of evidence exists that God does not exist, then so be it. If the weight of evidence points to his existence, then I am fine with that as well. You, on the other hand, cannot imagine such a thing to be, and that is the basis of your agument. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

yes, that is a valid link, but again, you completely misunderstand the argument from incredulity. it states that (quoted from your link!)

Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.

if we replace P with 'the universe was not created by God' then we have your argument

"I cannot see how the universe could have been created without God, therefore it was not." going back to your original statement:

As a Christian, I happen to believe in creation ex nihilo, so I agree it happened, but I see no connection between no physical constants or different physical constants and creation of an ordered universe fine tuned to more that 1 part in 10^1000+ in order for life to exist. I don't see how it follows that no physical constants results in the creation of the mind and consciousness, nor do I see how no physical constants creates a reality where mathematical relationships developed purely in the conscious mind accruately describe reality outside the conscious mind. Nor do I see why the gravitational attraction between two bodies should be inverse to the square of their distance. Why not inverse to the 2.132334450980892457 exponent of their distance? Why the nice round numbers we see throughout the physical constants? Beats me, unless of course there is a mind behind it all who seems to like ordered systems that have a point.

note the bolded segments. they basically amount to "I cannot see how this could have happened without God"

and the italicized amounts to "Therefore God."

this is a classic argument from incredulity. I will discuss this logical fallacy no more, because it serves no purpose. The readers can judge for themselves whether the fallacy applies.

[Starboard Tack]

you are simply replacing one of the turtles with God and declaring an end to the problem. you haven't actually solved it. it would be lovely if you could find a causal agent that is itself uncaused, but you don't have one. You are simply declaring that since you would like something to be there to end the endless regression loop (that may or may not be there), God must be there.

Call it what you will, but unless you wish your argument to be based on a logical absurdity resolving itself in a vicious infinite regression, you are left with the need to arrive at a prime mover, itself uncaused.

Or, as an intellectually honest person, I'm left saying I don't know. However, I don't know does not equal God.

I grant that we cannot know the nature of the prime mover, but a disallowance of there being a prime mover is not intellectual honesty, but a logical inconsistency. Eventually, the fact that there is something rather than nothing can only be resolved with an ultimate prime mover. As I said, call it what you will, but you are stuck with that reality.

further, you are proposing the problem that the universe is too fine tuned and complex to have came about on it's own, and solving that problem by positing an even more complex and fine tuned creator for that universe, that somehow avoid the very same problem. There is no factual basis for this assumption. You are making the leap from "we don't know how this worked" to "it's impossible for it to have worked, so God did it." without any rational basis.

First, God as creator is hardly more complex than level 2 - 4 multiverse theory so I think they will fall to Occam's razor before God does.

I'm not speaking of the theory here, I'm speaking of the entity.

you have two options:
1) God is more complex than anything he created, thus making him even less likely than the universe itself, or

2) God is less complex than what he created, therefore less complex things can create more complex things.

which do you believe to be true?

Clearly, I believe that God must be more complex than whatever he creates in the same way that Leonardo da Vinci is more complex than the Mona Lisa. And if that is correct, then pure naturalists must explain how consciousness (clearly complex) is derived from non-consciousness (clearly less compex).

Second, you are mistating my argument. I am simply saying that based on our experience in this space time, things that are created by minds have characterics that are different from things created by random processes.

than totally random processes sure (they are tuned to a purpose), however, something like natural selection thwarts this. There was a computer program designed to make random changes to an antenna until it got one that worked - it made a better antenna than any human could. can we know that there isn't some kind of selection process for universes?

You're proposing natural selection as an explanation for the fine tuned universe. Based on that theory, you must believe that there are other universes that are less fit for life, that were made extinct by this universe that is more fit for life. Say what? Completely incoherent.

As far as lacking a factual basis, your apparent belief that things showing intricate design can still come about through purely random unguided processes is a statement of faith, not reason.

now this is pure nonsense. I believe no such thing! pure randomness will get you nowhere. randomness with a selection process just might(like into homo-sapiens).

I agree with you. Since mutations are a requirement for evolution, and since they are random, evolution cannot get you anywhere in terms of explaining the complexity of life.

I don't think I am arguing from incredulity, but if you wish to debate that, which is the more incredulous statement:

1. Consciousness is the result of unconscious unguided processes, or
2. Conscriousness is the result of a first cause that is itself conscious.

You seem to believe the former, and I believe that is an incredible supposition since it presumes that an effect can be greater than its cause, although I wouldn't demean you by accusing you of arguments from incredulity.

Yes, you are. It seems you do not understand what the argument from incredulity is. The argument from incredulity is the idea that because something seems so utterly incredible, it couldn't have been true.

Kind of, but not quite. The argument from incredulity depends on a lack of imagination from the audience to make the argument fly. You cannot imagine God, and your argument depends on other people not being able to imagine God. I am not so burdened. If the weight of evidence exists that God does not exist, then so be it. If the weight of evidence points to his existence, then I am fine with that as well. You, on the other hand, cannot imagine such a thing to be, and that is the basis of your agument. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

yes, that is a valid link, but again, you completely misunderstand the argument from incredulity. it states that (quoted from your link!)

Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.

if we replace P with 'the universe was not created by God' then we have your argument

You cannot imagine how God could exist. If God could exist, you would be able to imagine it. You can't, therefore, God does not exist. Again, you don't understand your own argument.

"I cannot see how the universe could have been created without God, therefore it was not." going back to your original statement:

As a Christian, I happen to believe in creation ex nihilo, so I agree it happened, but I see no connection between no physical constants or different physical constants and creation of an ordered universe fine tuned to more that 1 part in 10^1000+ in order for life to exist. I don't see how it follows that no physical constants results in the creation of the mind and consciousness, nor do I see how no physical constants creates a reality where mathematical relationships developed purely in the conscious mind accruately describe reality outside the conscious mind. Nor do I see why the gravitational attraction between two bodies should be inverse to the square of their distance. Why not inverse to the 2.132334450980892457 exponent of their distance? Why the nice round numbers we see throughout the physical constants? Beats me, unless of course there is a mind behind it all who seems to like ordered systems that have a point.

note the bolded segments. they basically amount to "I cannot see how this could have happened without God"

and the italicized amounts to "Therefore God."
this is a classic argument from incredulity. I will discuss this logical fallacy no more, because it serves no purpose. The readers can judge for themselves whether the fallacy applies.

Good idea. I am merely saying that the evidence points to God. You cannot imagine God, therefore he cannot exist.

Using your logic, if I see a car knock over a telephone pole in a collision and note that the driver of the car is the cause of the downed pole, but you cannot imagine that this particular driver could have done such a stupid thing, it would be me, not you that was engaging in an argument from incredulity. A complete fantasy, but you are welcome to that fantasy.

[Autodidact]

Since mutations are a requirement for evolution, and since they are random, evolution cannot get you anywhere in terms of explaining the complexity of life.

a + b = Y.
Since a alone ! = Y, and you need a to be added to b to get y, a + b ! = y.
That makes no sense.
It's hard to see how anyone could post, or say, or believe, anything so nonsensical and obviously wrong.

Random mutations (a) + natural selection(b) explains the complexity and diversity of life (Y). Since random mutations alone does not, random mutations + natural selection does not.
That literally makes no sense.

[Starboard Tack]

Since mutations are a requirement for evolution, and since they are random, evolution cannot get you anywhere in terms of explaining the complexity of life.

a + b = Y.
Since a alone ! = Y, and you need a to be added to b to get y, a + b ! = y.
That makes no sense.
It's hard to see how anyone could post, or say, or believe, anything so nonsensical and obviously wrong.

Random mutations (a) + natural selection(b) explains the complexity and diversity of life (Y). Since random mutations alone does not, random mutations + natural selection does not.
That literally makes no sense.

I was responding to a statement made by the poster, and yes, I believe that because mutations must occur for natural selection to have something to act on, and since they are completely random, the likelihood that such random events can explain what is observed is improbable, ergo the reasonableness of a degree of skepticism. You feel this position is nonsensical. However, according to Francis Crick, ( http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/B/_/scbccb.pdf ) the universal genetic code cannot have evolved since any change will result in a massive loss of function, yet you believe this must be true since the code must be the process of evolutionary change. How nonsensical is that?

You must also believe that restriction endonucleases had to have evolved at precisely the same instant that methylases evolved, since the former without the latter results in cellular death. How nonsensical is that belief?

You must also believe that the age of the universal code at 3.8 billion years +/- .6 billion years evolved instantly since the earliest life we have is 3.86 billion years old ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/244/4905/673.short ). Again, nonsensical.

You understandably have a need to believe in things nonsensical for your worldview to avoid sinking below the waves. Theists are not so encumbered. If evolution is correct, then fine - that is how God accomplished his will. However, if evolution is nonsensical, as it appears to be, then atheists like you are left with nothing left to argue other than the people who disagree with you must be idiots. Unfortunately for that arguemnt, the data is the data, and there are sufficient reasons for skepticism of the evolutionary paradigm that characterizations that those holding that skepticism are "obviously wrong" is a statement of religious faith and not scientific reasoning.

[FinalEnigma]

you are simply replacing one of the turtles with God and declaring an end to the problem. you haven't actually solved it. it would be lovely if you could find a causal agent that is itself uncaused, but you don't have one. You are simply declaring that since you would like something to be there to end the endless regression loop (that may or may not be there), God must be there.

Call it what you will, but unless you wish your argument to be based on a logical absurdity resolving itself in a vicious infinite regression, you are left with the need to arrive at a prime mover, itself uncaused.

Or, as an intellectually honest person, I'm left saying I don't know. However, I don't know does not equal God.

I grant that we cannot know the nature of the prime mover, but a disallowance of there being a prime mover is not intellectual honesty, but a logical inconsistency. Eventually, the fact that there is something rather than nothing can only be resolved with an ultimate prime mover. As I said, call it what you will, but you are stuck with that reality.

again, as an intellectually honest person, I'm stuck with admitting that I don't know. I don't disallow the possibility of a prime mover, I simply do not agree that there is necessarily a need for it. again - I don't know. In order to show a need for your supernatural prime mover, you would need to show that there is no possible way that it could have occurred without one. this has not been done. human knowledge, as of now, simply does not encompass the time 'before' the big bang. we simply do not know - inserting God is not necessary.

again, I allow for the possibility of a god of some sort.

further, you are proposing the problem that the universe is too fine tuned and complex to have came about on it's own, and solving that problem by positing an even more complex and fine tuned creator for that universe, that somehow avoid the very same problem. There is no factual basis for this assumption. You are making the leap from "we don't know how this worked" to "it's impossible for it to have worked, so God did it." without any rational basis.

First, God as creator is hardly more complex than level 2 - 4 multiverse theory so I think they will fall to Occam's razor before God does.

I'm not speaking of the theory here, I'm speaking of the entity.

you have two options:
1) God is more complex than anything he created, thus making him even less likely than the universe itself, or

2) God is less complex than what he created, therefore less complex things can create more complex things.

which do you believe to be true?

Clearly, I believe that God must be more complex than whatever he creates in the same way that Leonardo da Vinci is more complex than the Mona Lisa.

Alright, so in order to explain the existence of something so complex as the universe, you are positing something even more complex?

And if that is correct, then pure naturalists must explain how consciousness (clearly complex) is derived from non-consciousness (clearly less compex).

This isn't a problem for me. I believe evolution encompasses this, and even if it didn't our (supposed) inability to account for it, once more, does not equal God.

Second, you are mistating my argument. I am simply saying that based on our experience in this space time, things that are created by minds have characterics that are different from things created by random processes.

than totally random processes sure (they are tuned to a purpose), however, something like natural selection thwarts this. There was a computer program designed to make random changes to an antenna until it got one that worked - it made a better antenna than any human could. can we know that there isn't some kind of selection process for universes?

You're proposing natural selection as an explanation for the fine tuned universe. Based on that theory, you must believe that there are other universes that are less fit for life, that were made extinct by this universe that is more fit for life.

clearly not - I'm saying that things can appear fine tuned and complex based on something other than deliberate intelligent design. This antenna created by the computer algorithm was absolutely fine turned for it's purpose.

As far as lacking a factual basis, your apparent belief that things showing intricate design can still come about through purely random unguided processes is a statement of faith, not reason.

now this is pure nonsense. I believe no such thing! pure randomness will get you nowhere. randomness with a selection process just might(like into homo-sapiens).

I agree with you. Since mutations are a requirement for evolution, and since they are random, evolution cannot get you anywhere in terms of explaining the complexity of life.

as has already been responded, I said that mutations + natural selection (basically) explains the complexity and diversity of life on earth.

you responded with effectively, "mutations do not explain the complexity of life on earth."

you are leaving out a step.

I don't think I am arguing from incredulity, but if you wish to debate that, which is the more incredulous statement:

1. Consciousness is the result of unconscious unguided processes, or
2. Conscriousness is the result of a first cause that is itself conscious.

You seem to believe the former, and I believe that is an incredible supposition since it presumes that an effect can be greater than its cause, although I wouldn't demean you by accusing you of arguments from incredulity.

Yes, you are. It seems you do not understand what the argument from incredulity is. The argument from incredulity is the idea that because something seems so utterly incredible, it couldn't have been true.

Kind of, but not quite. The argument from incredulity depends on a lack of imagination from the audience to make the argument fly. You cannot imagine God, and your argument depends on other people not being able to imagine God. I am not so burdened. If the weight of evidence exists that God does not exist, then so be it. If the weight of evidence points to his existence, then I am fine with that as well. You, on the other hand, cannot imagine such a thing to be, and that is the basis of your agument. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

yes, that is a valid link, but again, you completely misunderstand the argument from incredulity. it states that (quoted from your link!)

Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.

if we replace P with 'the universe was not created by God' then we have your argument

You cannot imagine how God could exist. If God could exist, you would be able to imagine it. You can't, therefore, God does not exist. Again, you don't understand your own argument.

"I cannot see how the universe could have been created without God, therefore it was not." going back to your original statement:

As a Christian, I happen to believe in creation ex nihilo, so I agree it happened, but I see no connection between no physical constants or different physical constants and creation of an ordered universe fine tuned to more that 1 part in 10^1000+ in order for life to exist. I don't see how it follows that no physical constants results in the creation of the mind and consciousness, nor do I see how no physical constants creates a reality where mathematical relationships developed purely in the conscious mind accruately describe reality outside the conscious mind. Nor do I see why the gravitational attraction between two bodies should be inverse to the square of their distance. Why not inverse to the 2.132334450980892457 exponent of their distance? Why the nice round numbers we see throughout the physical constants? Beats me, unless of course there is a mind behind it all who seems to like ordered systems that have a point.

note the bolded segments. they basically amount to "I cannot see how this could have happened without God"

and the italicized amounts to "Therefore God."
this is a classic argument from incredulity. I will discuss this logical fallacy no more, because it serves no purpose. The readers can judge for themselves whether the fallacy applies.

Good idea. I am merely saying that the evidence points to God. You cannot imagine God, therefore he cannot exist.

Using your logic, if I see a car knock over a telephone pole in a collision and note that the driver of the car is the cause of the downed pole, but you cannot imagine that this particular driver could have done such a stupid thing, it would be me, not you that was engaging in an argument from incredulity. A complete fantasy, but you are welcome to that fantasy.

as I said, I won't debate the logical fallacy further, but rather will let readers make their decision.

[nygreenguy]

I was responding to a statement made by the poster, and yes, I believe that because mutations must occur for natural selection to have something to act on, and since they are completely random, the likelihood that such random events can explain what is observed is improbable, ergo the reasonableness of a degree of skepticism.

1) How did you calculate this improbability? 2) We have observed it, so we know it happens. You mentioned the e coli experiment, regardless of any concept of time or generations, mutations happened and natural selection acted upon them. something you seem to claim cant happen.

You feel this position is nonsensical. However, according to Francis Crick, ( http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/B/_/scbccb.pdf ) the universal genetic code cannot have evolved since any change will result in a massive loss of function, yet you believe this must be true since the code must be the process of evolutionary change. How nonsensical is that?

As I have stated before, I hate to debate claims without an actual source. Now, you provided the paper, but I am not seeing what you are claiming in there. Can you quote it or tell me page and paragraph so I can specifically figure out what you are saying?

You must also believe that restriction endonucleases had to have evolved at precisely the same instant that methylases evolved, since the former without the latter results in cellular death. How nonsensical is that belief?

It is pretty nonsensical, mostly because it isnt true. Both of the processes are either redundant or modified versions of simpler processes. DNA methylation is involved in DNA replication ad there are other independent restriction enzyme like activities in the cell.

You must also believe that the age of the universal code at 3.8 billion years +/- .6 billion years evolved instantly since the earliest life we have is 3.86 billion years old ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/244/4905/673.short ). Again, nonsensical.

Individual and master sequences of tRNA reflect kinship relations
that are consistent with generally accepted evolutionary patterns
(16-18) and allow comparative analysis to be extended into a
prephylogenetic time range. The evolutionary spread of individual
tRNAs such as that found in various species families does not
drastically exceed phylogenetic divergence of given tRNAs. The
qualitative conclusion follows that the origin of the genetic code did
not predate early phylogenetic diversification (for example, of
cubacteria and archaebacteria) to a considerable extent. Had the
code been much older-and this would be possible only in case of
extraterrestriaol rigin-those changes that clearly can be identified as
phylogenetic divergence would previously have become randomized
to a large extent. The study reported in this article quantifies this
statement by making a detailed comparative analysis based on the
method of statistical geometry in sequence space...
Errors of assignment to positional classes (that is, constant,
moderately, and highly diverged) are limited in general to ?2
positions, possibly differing in different species families. Furthermore,
these assignments as such are only one possible attempt of
quantifying the nonuniformity of evolutionary substitution rates.
The main source of errors, however, is the uncertainty in establishing
and dating earliest nodes. If early nodes of kingdom separation
are to be dated around 2.5 ? 0.5 billion years ago (7, 17, 22), the
code cannot be older than 3.8 (+0.6) billion years.

They only said it can NOT be older than that (and we will exclude their "primitive" methods) and the oldest life is is not 3.8 billion. I believe that evidence was tossed out.

You understandably have a need to believe in things nonsensical for your worldview to avoid sinking below the waves. Theists are not so encumbered. If evolution is correct, then fine - that is how God accomplished his will. However, if evolution is nonsensical, as it appears to be, then atheists like you are left with nothing left to argue other than the people who disagree with you must be idiots.

No, I only say you are not getting the facts straight.

Unfortunately for that arguemnt, the data is the data, and there are sufficient reasons for skepticism of the evolutionary paradigm that characterizations that those holding that skepticism are "obviously wrong" is a statement of religious faith and not scientific reasoning.

No, as I have stated a while back is that without the "whole picture" understanding, you cant expect to understand, let alone debate, the merits of evolution.

Most everything you keep claiming is a problem has been studied in depth. In addition, being wrong about these things have consequences. We make further predictions based upon these issues you say we are wrong about and yet the science still works!

[Autodidact]

Since mutations are a requirement for evolution, and since they are random, evolution cannot get you anywhere in terms of explaining the complexity of life.

a + b = Y.
Since a alone ! = Y, and you need a to be added to b to get y, a + b ! = y.
That makes no sense.
It's hard to see how anyone could post, or say, or believe, anything so nonsensical and obviously wrong.

Random mutations (a) + natural selection(b) explains the complexity and diversity of life (Y). Since random mutations alone does not, random mutations + natural selection does not.
That literally makes no sense.

I was responding to a statement made by the poster, and yes, I believe that because mutations must occur for natural selection to have something to act on, and since they are completely random, the likelihood that such random events can explain what is observed is improbable, ergo the reasonableness of a degree of skepticism. You feel this position is nonsensical.

I don't feel that it's nonsense, it is, as I have shown with the above equation.

However, according to Francis Crick, ( http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/B/_/scbccb.pdf ) the universal genetic code cannot have evolved since any change will result in a massive loss of function, yet you believe this must be true since the code must be the process of evolutionary change. How nonsensical is that?

Are you talking about abiogenesis again? The subject seems to hold a fascination to you. I suggest that you start a thread to discuss it.

This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder whether you are unable to grasp, or unable to admit that the Theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. Since it is a simple concept, I tend to guess it's the latter.

You must also believe that restriction endonucleases had to have evolved at precisely the same instant that methylases evolved, since the former without the latter results in cellular death. How nonsensical is that belief?

I suggest that you wait for me to assert a "belief" before responding to it.

You must also believe that the age of the universal code at 3.8 billion years +/- .6 billion years evolved instantly since the earliest life we have is 3.86 billion years old ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/244/4905/673.short ). Again, nonsensical.

Didn't you mean the fossils we have? I wonder, do you think the earliest forms of life would have left fossil evidence?

I suggest that you ask me, not tell me, what I believe. That generally works better.

You understandably have a need to believe in things nonsensical for your worldview to avoid sinking below the waves.

Really? Please demonstrate, rather than merely assert.

Theists are not so encumbered. If evolution is correct, then fine - that is how God accomplished his will. However, if evolution is nonsensical, as it appears to be, then atheists like you are left with nothing left to argue other than the people who disagree with you must be idiots. Unfortunately for that arguemnt, the data is the data, and there are sufficient reasons for skepticism of the evolutionary paradigm that characterizations that those holding that skepticism are "obviously wrong" is a statement of religious faith and not scientific reasoning.

If the moon is made of green cheese, then it's going to make a whopping sandwich. If it turns out that ToE is not correct, then chances are that science will figure out what it, just as it has so many times before.

Have I ever called you an idiot or any other name? Do you really need to resort to inventing insults out of whole cloth? I prefer to respond to the argument rather than the person making it. As I clearly demonstrated, you argument is nonsense. As to why you believe nonsense--I'm sure you can tell us better than I.

Once again you make hollow assertions. You assert that there are sufficient reasons, yet you have yet to demonstrate that to be the case. Of course, if it is, there's something seriously wrong with all of modern Biology, which is founded on a fundamental error. Yet, oddly, like most of science, it continues to work.

I have a question for you: Do you believe that the scientific method, that is, the modern scientific method, which includes methodological naturalism, works?

You seem to think that if you disprove ToE (an impossible task) that somehow proves God. First, since ToE appears to be correct, your task is impossible. But if you did succeed, it would do absolutely nothing to support your argument that God exists. The argument over ToE is not an argument about whether God created all things, only about how. If God exists, He created all species via ToE. If not, then ToE works without God.

I'm sure you find it comforting to characterize an acceptance of scientific knowledge as "religion," thereby casting it into the same vat of superstition as belief in a magical invisible being. Of course, we all know it's the precise opposite.

[Starboard Tack]

I was responding to a statement made by the poster, and yes, I believe that because mutations must occur for natural selection to have something to act on, and since they are completely random, the likelihood that such random events can explain what is observed is improbable, ergo the reasonableness of a degree of skepticism.

1) How did you calculate this improbability? 2) We have observed it, so we know it happens. You mentioned the e coli experiment, regardless of any concept of time or generations, mutations happened and natural selection acted upon them. something you seem to claim cant happen.

You must not be reading my posts. I point to the LTEE as an example of mutation and natural selection that teaches us a lot about the power of the evolutionary paradigm to generate change. In this case quadrillions of individuals had to live and die under conditions encouraging a very specific mutation set before that mutation set appeared. Apply those numbers to the populations available for other species with far more radical change claimed by the ToE and you can begin to understand why many find the model unpersuasive.

Regarding probability calculations, let's start with something that all life is based on - the universal genetic code. According to agnostic biophysicist Hubert Yockey, to produce the code as we find it would have required that natural selection explore 1.4 x 10^70 different genetic codes to hit on the universal code. Since there are 6.3 x 10^15 seconds since the big bang, natural selection would have had to act on 10^55 codes per second if the process began the instant of creation.

The evolutionary paradigm answers these challenges by saying, "well since we have the code, it must have evolved very quickly" without providing the slightest scientific basis for such an assertion. While it is typical for skeptics of evolution to be portrayed as being in the unbelievable, overcoming the data and holding the view most evolutionists hold seems to me to require nearly boundless faith with scant grounding in reality.

You feel this position is nonsensical. However, according to Francis Crick, ( http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/B/_/scbccb.pdf ) the universal genetic code cannot have evolved since any change will result in a massive loss of function, yet you believe this must be true since the code must be the process of evolutionary change. How nonsensical is that?

Code: Select all

 As I have stated before, I hate to debate claims without an actual source. Now, you provided the paper, but I am not seeing what you are claiming in there. Can you quote it or tell me page and paragraph so I can specifically figure out what you are saying?

Happy to. From the paper: It might be argued that the primitive code was not a triplet code but that originally the bases were read one at a time (giving 4 coao~), then two at a time (giving 16 codons) and only later evolved to the present triplet code. This seems highly unlikely, since it violates the Principle of Continuity. A change in codon size necessarily makes nonsense of all previous messages and would almost certainly be lethal. If you can explain how codon size changes can be almost certainly lethal to the organism within a model that posits that the code evolved over time, I would love to hear the explanation.

You must also believe that restriction endonucleases had to have evolved at precisely the same instant that methylases evolved, since the former without the latter results in cellular death. How nonsensical is that belief?

It is pretty nonsensical, mostly because it isnt true. Both of the processes are either redundant or modified versions of simpler processes. DNA methylation is involved in DNA replication ad there are other independent restriction enzyme like activities in the cell.

Restriction endonucleases are used to disassemble alien DNA. Methylation of the restriction sites is how the cell prevents the endonucleases from disassembling its own DNA. You can't have one without the other if the cell is going to live, so they must have evolved simultaneously. This is another chicken and egg problem, which has no explanation for solution within an unguided process.

You must also believe that the age of the universal code at 3.8 billion years +/- .6 billion years evolved instantly since the earliest life we have is 3.86 billion years old ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/244/4905/673.short ). Again, nonsensical.

Individual and master sequences of tRNA reflect kinship relations
that are consistent with generally accepted evolutionary patterns
(16-18) and allow comparative analysis to be extended into a
prephylogenetic time range. The evolutionary spread of individual
tRNAs such as that found in various species families does not
drastically exceed phylogenetic divergence of given tRNAs. The
qualitative conclusion follows that the origin of the genetic code did
not predate early phylogenetic diversification (for example, of
cubacteria and archaebacteria) to a considerable extent. Had the
code been much older-and this would be possible only in case of
extraterrestriaol rigin-those changes that clearly can be identified as
phylogenetic divergence would previously have become randomized
to a large extent. The study reported in this article quantifies this
statement by making a detailed comparative analysis based on the
method of statistical geometry in sequence space...
Errors of assignment to positional classes (that is, constant,
moderately, and highly diverged) are limited in general to ?2
positions, possibly differing in different species families. Furthermore,
these assignments as such are only one possible attempt of
quantifying the nonuniformity of evolutionary substitution rates.
The main source of errors, however, is the uncertainty in establishing
and dating earliest nodes. If early nodes of kingdom separation
are to be dated around 2.5 ? 0.5 billion years ago (7, 17, 22), the
code cannot be older than 3.8 (+0.6) billion years.

They only said it can NOT be older than that (and we will exclude their "primitive" methods) and the oldest life is is not 3.8 billion. I believe that evidence was tossed out.

Ok, so it can't be older than 3.8 billion years, but can be younger. See Yockey's calculations above for the likelihood of the code ever appearing, much less 3.5 or 3.2 or 3.0 billion years ago.

You understandably have a need to believe in things nonsensical for your worldview to avoid sinking below the waves. Theists are not so encumbered. If evolution is correct, then fine - that is how God accomplished his will. However, if evolution is nonsensical, as it appears to be, then atheists like you are left with nothing left to argue other than the people who disagree with you must be idiots.

No, I only say you are not getting the facts straight.

Please provide an example of where my facts are incorrect. As you wished me to quote the specific portion of Crick's paper that applied to my comment, please be specific in identifying where I am incorrect.

Unfortunately for that arguemnt, the data is the data, and there are sufficient reasons for skepticism of the evolutionary paradigm that characterizations that those holding that skepticism are "obviously wrong" is a statement of religious faith and not scientific reasoning.

No, as I have stated a while back is that without the "whole picture" understanding, you cant expect to understand, let alone debate, the merits of evolution.

Most everything you keep claiming is a problem has been studied in depth. In addition, being wrong about these things have consequences. We make further predictions based upon these issues you say we are wrong about and yet the science still works!

Wonderful! Then please provide the in depth explanation of the origin of the universal genetic code, since it has been studied so thoroughly.

[nygreenguy]

You must not be reading my posts. I point to the LTEE as an example of mutation and natural selection that teaches us a lot about the power of the evolutionary paradigm to generate change. In this case quadrillions of individuals had to live and die under conditions encouraging a very specific mutation set before that mutation set appeared.

And this is where the problem, as outlined before, lies. You talk about a "specific mutation" as if that was the goal of evolution. As I described, and as natural selection predicts, it is about traits that increase fitness. That whole time before the specific citrate mutation, we were seeing varying increases in fitness without that specific mutation. Why do you focus on this one mutation, yet ignore the other changes which increased their fitness? You are comparing the probability like you would for winning the lotto. You have your specific number and you try to predict the probability of THOSE specific numbers coming up. Instead, you need to look at it like the probability of anyone winning the lotto. People win the lotto all the time. Why dont you see this as impossible?

Apply those numbers to the populations available for other species with far more radical change claimed by the ToE and you can begin to understand why many find the model unpersuasive.

Except that the number are flawed, as is the science. There are varying selection pressures, mutation rates, etc... so to try to extrapolate is irrational.

Regarding probability calculations, let's start with something that all life is based on - the universal genetic code. According to agnostic biophysicist Hubert Yockey, to produce the code as we find it would have required that natural selection explore 1.4 x 10^70 different genetic codes to hit on the universal code. Since there are 6.3 x 10^15 seconds since the big bang, natural selection would have had to act on 10^55 codes per second if the process began the instant of creation.

First, you should know I dont address something like this without a source.

However, I can spot the flaw and it is obvious. It is just as I explained earlier. What makes the one we have, the necessary result? This is the same lotto argument.

The evolutionary paradigm answers these challenges by saying, "well since we have the code, it must have evolved very quickly" without providing the slightest scientific basis for such an assertion. While it is typical for skeptics of evolution to be portrayed as being in the unbelievable, overcoming the data and holding the view most evolutionists hold seems to me to require nearly boundless faith with scant grounding in reality.

I dont see anyone answering the challenges by saying it arose quickly. Where is the evidence for this?

You feel this position is nonsensical. However, according to Francis Crick, ( http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/B/_/scbccb.pdf ) the universal genetic code cannot have evolved since any change will result in a massive loss of function, yet you believe this must be true since the code must be the process of evolutionary change. How nonsensical is that?... Happy to. From the paper: It might be argued that the primitive code was not a triplet code but that originally the bases were read one at a time (giving 4 coao~), then two at a time (giving 16 codons) and only later evolved to the present triplet code. This seems highly unlikely, since it violates the Principle of Continuity. A change in codon size necessarily makes nonsense of all previous messages and would almost certainly be lethal. If you can explain how codon size changes can be almost certainly lethal to the organism within a model that posits that the code evolved over time, I would love to hear the explanation.

Ok, I get it now. Your statement is absolutely unrelated to the paper. It is a strawman argument. He is saying that organisms didnt evolve to have one or two bases code for an amino acid and he explain why. Your argument only supports the notion that we couldnt have evolved a one or two base system for each amino acid as opposed to a triplet. He then even goes on to explain all of this. Im not sure how you made this error.

Restriction endonucleases are used to disassemble alien DNA. Methylation of the restriction sites is how the cell prevents the endonucleases from disassembling its own DNA. You can't have one without the other if the cell is going to live, so they must have evolved simultaneously. This is another chicken and egg problem, which has no explanation for solution within an unguided process.

Multiple papers have shown that the mechanisms are/can be independent, and can evolve from other existing precursors. This is another example of not having enough background in the science and trying to argue a point.

Wonderful! Then please provide the in depth explanation of the origin of the universal genetic code, since it has been studied so thoroughly.

That is what university is for. It would be like me asking a doctor how to know how to diagnose and treat a patient. At some point, a person needs to acknowledge their ignorance and realize the professionals most likely know what they are doing and me, reading a few things here and there online doesnt give me the knowledge to think they are all delusional.