So, I was up late watching Nick News...

[kahljorn]

This is ridiculous, especially the part with cells.

"the intregal mechanisms of a cell function together similarly to the individual citizens of a little town, but where each member is vital to the survival of the whole community. The cell itself really only reproduces itself as a whole, and each little citizen is responsible for a small portion of this overall goal. How did that evolve?"

"The integral mechanisms(organs) of the human body function together similary to the individual citizens of a little town, but where each member is vital to the survival of the whole community. The human body itself really only produces itself as a whole, and each little citizen is responsible for a small portion of this overall goal. How did that evolve?"

First off: Like i said, ridiculous. Just because something is so small that we can, as of now, not understand or observe properly it doesn't mean it's "irreducible complex". That's like saying cells didn't exist before microscopes because we couldn't see them. Also, not everything about the human body is completely understood. I just proved evolution and God wrong.

Secondly: It evolved just like anything else did, in this case all the "Organs" of a cell are mutually responsible for the upkeeping of the whole, just like any "organism"(are cells even considered organisms?) Without all of it's organs, it might not function at all, or it might function at a reduced rate.. or in a rare occurance it might function even better which generally results in a catastrophe to whatever it is a part of.

Thirdly: It has already been discussed that in darwin's time it was thought organisms themselves were the proponents of the actual evolutionary occurence, but now a days we know genetics are responsible. So, perhaps we should equate it to searching for irreducibly complex genetic structures?
Knowledge changes, the fact that people who refute it stick with old termonology and old facts really undermine alot of what those people are saying.

Fourth(or 2 squared): Clearly, the cell evolved in a matter in which it could survive as a living thing(again, are cells really organisms?) which meant adopting various parts to make it complete, trial and error? I don't know. Perhaps before today's cell there were different cells that didn't work very well, some cells are known to be weaker or mutated(cancer) occasionally even in today's world.

Fifth: There are different types of cells for Plant life. Obviously that indicates some type of difference, possibly indicating change.

My guess is it evolved in a way that when it finally became a successful "Organism" or "Cell" it reproduced itself and voila. All cells really point at is an evolutionary success of the most fundamental pattern. The idea that most cells are pretty much the same for alot of animals actually supports evolution, I think. Just like atoms being beneath everything supports other scientific fields.

I don't even know that much about this topic, but i feel the assumptions you are making show you know even less. I've never studied this topic, never found "Evidences" that made me "Believe" it(which puts us in the same boat), but through rational thinking it's obvious the evidences you are throwing out against it don't support either side in it's entirety. If you're going to argue, do it properly, not with vain knowledge. You are merely hiding evidence behind ignorance; not just yours, but the world's-- as if it proves anything.
Neither side necessarily KNOWS. Okay, buddy? Neither side necessarily knows everything about everything. Science has been proved wrong before, even when it was thought to be right. But regardless, that science created something new, so even if it was wrong it was, at the very least, successful.
Progression is progressive, which indicates that at some point it's going to be lacking certain bits of knowledge. Pretending like that lack of knowledge proves the whole of progression wrong is a stupid assumption, and that seems to be what you are basing your Evidence on.


Also, from the genetic angle of this discussion: from what I understand certain types of humans(for example the aborigines) had less chromosomes than us? In the case of the abrogines, I believe they had two less chromosomes than us. Does this at all support evolution? Possibly.
If I remember correctly, I believe certain types of retardation occur from manipulation of chromosomes as well. This essentially supports the idea that, "When genes change the organism reflects this". The only missing piece is how the genes change; but clearly they do if retards and aborigines occur. Right?
Also, not every human being is the same. Some have certain defects they are born with brought about by Genetic abnormalities: Again, change from genetic change, and again, substantiated evidence that change happens.
How does it happen, i wonder? From what I understand the organism is constantly creating new biological material from the food it eats(which is why they say we've become completely new people every seven years or so), hence the saying you are what you eat. That's the primary reason we eat, sustanance and creation. Some forms of illness(cancer) are a result of poor nutrition because the body no longer has the proper building blocks to restore it's biological material that, while created daily, also dies daily. So essentially, if the intake of the organism was incomplete, or over complete, or had some kind of extra building block the body couldn't use(which becomes what is known as a "Free radical") the possibility for an unexplained and unknowable change becomes possible, possibly in the genetic material used to create new life?
Also, anything foreign to the body could possibly also induce the same changes. New makes new? Maybe.
I'm not really supporting any of the above as evidence, it was just kind of an idea.

[kahljorn]

"Also, anything foreign to the body could possibly also induce the same changes. New makes new? Maybe."

Adding to that; if an organism was at first built to survive off of certain chemicals or gases or molecules, like oxygen and carbon dioxide, what would the long term exposure to something it's not built to handle cause? Obviously, it has to have some sort of effect, if the body is exposed to anything it has to react, no matter what it is. Something as simple as being born at the bottom of the sea next to a volcanic vent would likely be used to high water pressure, while surfacing would create a different atmosphere entirely, exposing them to sunlight and possibly other chemicals/gases.
Again, the body HAS to react to these effects, whether it's a simple matter of drowning or being crushed by high pressure, or by being poisoned as a result of exposure to foreign gases and chemicals.
Anyway, go with what i said before off of shit like that. Different chemicals and gases, different minerals, yada yada, body using them for bodily material, yada yada stuff happening and stuff. Eatting foods it's not supposed to, stuff. stuff. yea.

[Preechr]

Ziggy, I waited way to long to post a reply to your first comment, but my post probably is still a decent response to your second (other than I'd probably have remarked on your hostility again...)

Kal, maybe it was my example or the way I said it that made it seem ridiculous... It's a valid argument in the discussion.

[kahljorn]

"So from a genetic perspective, none of the individual organisms can have a 'self-interest' opposed to the 'interests' of the hive. A lion on the other hand doesn't share as many genes with some other lions offspring as he would his own, so he's ok with killing other lions and their offspring if it will help him have more succesful offspring. "

By the way, I forgot to mention this before but now I remember: This makes evolutionary sense in MANY angles. Not just what you were saying, but also the idea that the possibility for evolution has become more probable with the occurance of such varied genes. That indicates some kind of concept beyond just empty evolutionary processing, but some kind of conceptual evolution in which the modes themselves change to be more productive.
I can't exactly pinpoint what I'm trying to say, something about how evolution has occured in such a way that it has made itself(evolution) stronger and more likely.

[kahljorn]

"Kal, maybe it was my example or the way I said it that made it seem ridiculous... It's a valid argument in the discussion."

No, it was the idea that it's irreducibly complex because it's small.

[Preechr]

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

Here's something to read. I'm not a big fan of Behe, but he's had a lot of evolutionists working very hard to refute many of his assertions. Generally, they do so by going just a bit further than calling him a Jesus-freak.

[kahljorn]

What about cancer, though? That's a mutated cell which implies parts are missing or distorted, but it still works, just in a different fashion.

I get the idea of it, though, that if it were to evolve into what it is today, at some point it would've had to have been missing some of what it has now, and must've been functional to some degree. I didn't get that at first, my mistake.

However, evolution is complex. Consider it like this:
Perhaps before the cell had different parts, and gradually added different ones on, or the parts themselves changed or upgraded. Which means, through some kind of process of the exchange of various parts, it became what it is today. Which means 70 billion years ago it could've had completely different parts, but through a process it adopted what it has today. Which definitley allows for the possibility of a less complex cell, even missing some or all of the parts it has today.

[Emu]

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...box/behe.shtml

Criticism of Behe's "Box."

[kahljorn]

Yea, that puzzle took me like three seconds to crack, and I'm not even a scientist. ;/

[Preechr]

There's TONS of that lying around. I kinda figured that kal might read through some new stuff before he looked up the readily available criticisms of it.

As I've said, the argument is very interesting. I was reluctant to post any links to anything because googling any of it finds much more criticisms of it then it does support.

That sort of excuses my skepticism, though, doesn't it? Certainly Behe has caused a lot of thought to be put into evolutionism that might not have been added were it not for his skepticism. His ideas were obviously valid enough at one point to have warranted the attention of many, many smart guys hostile to his position.

I said it before, I'm neither for creationism or evolutionism nor ID. I look at what comes out of all the little black boxes. I'm an ethicist, if anything.... maybe a moralist. I could give two shits about where we come from to be honest. I have my own beliefs, but were they proven wrong my life would not change. My remarks concern the behavior of the parties involved. My first post here regarded the arrogant way in which ID proponents were automatically dismissed as ignorant, bible-thumping cave luddites, but what pissed me off is how the method used was to change their position and then deride it.

If I have a dog in this fight at all, it's only that I believe the philosophical ramifications of Darwinism as a pseudo-religion are upsetting on a societal level. I also wanted to stir up enough shit to drag this thread out a few pages so Kevin would say, "Hey, this was a fun topic! Maybe I should have stickied it like I originally thought instead of questioning my judgement..."

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Does my contention ring true at all to you that the Goliath of Science, based in actual facts, shouldn't be still going toe to toe with the David of Religion on this? The biggest black eye that evolutionism has is that it has yet to find a way to silence it's critics that are based in ignorance and superstitious ideas.

How hard is it to write a book? How easy is it to burn a book because you don't like what's written in it? How hard is it to prove that my invisible buddy up in space didn't make everything that exists 50 years ago, and since my invisible buddy is also omnipotent, and a bit of an asshole, he made everything to look just as if it had a history before that 50 years, even going so far as to create MEMORIES in every living being? I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE MY INVISIBLE ASSHOLE GOD DID NOT DO THIS!

As long as the bulk of the critics' loudest complaint is "WELL IT AINT IN *MY* BIBLE" - they'll never be silenced in a society with freedom of religion. And I don't really mind that either, as long as I'm free to think they're retarded fuckfaces.

nobody's really running around doubting the Big Bang, planet orbits, black holes, dinosaurs, cloning, genetics or just about anything else regarded as scientific fact. Isn't that odd?

What? I doubt most Creationists believe in the Big Bang. Literal creationists don't believe in dinosaurs either - I had a teacher in my private school days who said the Devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us. I'm not fucking kidding. Church of Christ, baby. If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't Godly.

But anyone willing to make room for things not explicitly stated in Genesis should have no more trouble reconciling evolution than the Big Bang with their faith. I had another teacher at this same school who had no problem teaching evolution in Biology. Cuz he figured what difference did it make to his faith if perhaps God CREATED evolution? Wowzers, there's a chicken vs. egg argument!

The main dig here, and this is something that a lot of people don't understand, is that evolution/common descent isn't 100% certain fact. It never can be. BUT should there be EVIDENCE to support an alternative theory, and to refute common descent, the principes of scientific review allow a mechanism to accept this new evidence, and change science itself. This is something Religion has a hard time doing. Rather than change, the zealot will suppress new findings. This can be true of individual scientists, who are perhaps vain regarding their own theories, but in general new evidence is quickly assimilated by the scientific community.

In the end though, there will ALWAYS be people who look to religion to explain the things they don't understand. There will even be people who make a religion of science, and I am certainly NOT advocating that behavior. If you wish to learn, then educate yourself. If you wish to be persuaded through demagoguery and fallacious syllogisms, by all means, latch onto the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design. Or pick some third wacky libertarian origin theory if it makes you happy.

I really don't give a fuck what you wish to think. But it's a fun bit of distraction, innit?

[Emu]

nobody's really running around doubting the Big Bang, planet orbits, black holes, dinosaurs, cloning, genetics or just about anything else regarded as scientific fact. Isn't that odd?

Are you joking? Tons of people doubt those things. The Big Bang, cloning and black holes in particular.

By the way, there's no such thing as a scientific fact. Science can never establish facts. Science can gather evidence for an assertion whose truth value approaches 1, but can never reach it. At least, not through science.

[kahljorn]

"I kinda figured that kal might read through some new stuff before he looked up the readily available criticisms of it. "

I didn't look up the criticisms of it, I figured that out on my own. The only criticism I read was the one Emu posted which was why I thought it was funny that it agreed with me.

It isn't exactly a stretch to figure out that things don't neccessarily magically become the way they are(unless you a creationist, which seems to be exactly what that guy is and all of his theories seem to revolve around it, even when it's about disproving evolution he seems to think they magically came into being the way they are), and the idea that smart people would get stuck on something so obvious as that is rather ridiculous.

"As I've said, the argument is very interesting."

It was interesting, and it made sense. It just doesn't work the way he says it does, and anybody who studies (or uses their brain)evolution at all would know that. Evolution isn't about one day poof, magically we're humans. It was a slow process of gradual changes that took a very long time. That's the PREMISE, and exactly what "Irreducible complexity" is attempting to refute, NOT that if you ripped out your heart you wouldn't be able to live anymore. Everybody knows that.
The fact that he completely ignored that shows exactly how stupid he was, and exactly how well he didn't understand evolution. He was basically putting his ideas of the universe onto evolution, which I personally find hilarious. He treated evolution like it was creationism. Projection?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I didn't look up the criticisms of it, I figured that out on my own...

Wow. Man, they sure could use your help then, down there at those science places. This is all still pretty hotly debated by really, really smart guys in white coats. Maybe you have some sort of gift, like a science-Superman, or Rainman or something like that.

You shouldn't keep that kind of super deductive talent bottled up here on the internet, wasted on us normal people. Use what God (or Gaiea or whatever) gave you for the good of mankind!

[kahljorn]

Don't be jealous just because it stumped your stupid ass, stumpy mc fuckface. I just have the common sense to realize the distinction between evolution and creation, enough to realize that if you ripped your heart out you would die. "But if you took the spring out of the mousetrap it wouldn't work anymore. Clearly, this indicates that evolution must be wrong." If that was the case, the fact that we can die would prove that evolution is wrong, and somehow I have a feeling that darwin knew that death occured. In fact, I think it probably had a little something to do with his theory.

Common sense doesn't necessarily equate to being a genius.

ev·o·lu·tion
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

Gradual, not instantaneous Nothing like knowing what a word means to get you through the day.

[Preechr]

Dude, you are, like, totally WAY over my head on this. I never knew evolution had an actual DEFINITION! Like, whoa. Heavy.

I still say you need to e-mail those M.I.T. guys that are wrestling with this stuff every day and let them know about this definition you found.

[Emu]

I wonder if there's a genetic reason for how typical it is that in arguments about evolution someone inevitably breaks down into weak sarcasm.

[kahljorn]

You mean there's smart people investigating death by organ removal? What is that, some branch of anatomy or something?
Man we sure are behind cause like I remember back in the day when they knew bleeding to death would kill someone or stabbing them instomach or heart or kidneys or liver or where ever man it's funny how the times work sometimes you feel like you traveled to the future into the middle of a circus full of gigantic walking brains and hearts that have evolved past irreducible complexity and you know when children are born their organs rip out of their body and begin a legacy of brutality starting with some kind of strange anatomical masturbation you know what i mean but then there's these other times where you just feel like a caveman trying to eat a moistened rock and you have to wonder exactly what is god thinking making life such a double entendre like that i mean come on doesn't he know how to color inside the lines he invented the big mac but forgot to add pickles and that's what the world is like it's horrible and you know what im not taking it anymore i think i will take this to MIT that way they can you know fix things by studing them and posting information about it on the message board and when they finally discover the truth on the message board they can spread it to other message boards in true memotic form just like dawkins would have done isn't that right don't you agree and the world will be a better place all thanks to the internet and people who post messages on it

Anybody ever noticed how dawkins and darwin are kind of similar names? It's obviously a conspiracy of the highest order.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Emu

I wonder if there's a genetic reason for how typical it is that in arguments about evolution someone inevitably breaks down into weak sarcasm.

No, it proves that there is a God, and that he's terribly amused.

[CaptainBubba]

Evolution arguments always break down because people who don't accept evolution are the same people who would honestly argue to you that the earth is flat BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN SPACE HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT, IT IS STILL HOTLY DEBATED BY PEOPLE I SWEAR.

Evolution is accepted by all respected scientists as far as I know. Honestly Preechr you havent made any argument refuting anything evolution suggests. The burden of proof is upon evolution's supporters, but that doesn't mean when there is loads of proof and evidence suggesting it you can go "YEA WHATEVER I AINT SEEN NOTHIN" and expect people to not get hostile with your stupidity.

I could make a really convoluted thread about how you can never convince me that gravity exists but you could always throw me off a fucking mountain, just like I could bring a petri dish of bacteria and expose it to some toxin and watch the remaining bacteria reproduce OMG EVOLUTION.

If your deal is just the specific anthropological aspects of evolution then aww poor baby you are a fucking monkey boohoo.

[Big Papa Goat]

ya but what about that bacteiral flagella, that points to God wanting bacteria to have flagella in an infinite plan of divine wisdom that is incredibly complex and impossible to know, but flagella are definitely a part of it.

also, ribosomes, I'm pretty sure those are too complicated to have happened without something desiging them.

I mean think abotu it, if you saw a watch, you'd assume a watchmaker made it, so he could tell time.

So, if you see an organism, you should assume some intelligent entity designed it, and all other organisms, with some purpose in mind that we'll never be able to understand because its so complex and because He's so complex.

I mean really, it's obvious that complexity only comes from carefully laid out plans. Kind of like language, how early linguists figured out the best and most unique and diverse ways of talking so that thousands of years later, people would be able to write beautiful poems.


Kind of like society too, the way John Locke figured about how humans could best organize themself according to reasonable principles, and how we all decided that was better than living as isolated individuals. Remember back when we did that? Remember when we all figured out a plan for a diverse, complex society? Good thing we came up with that plan, so we could have all the beautiful diversity we have today.

Now we jsut gotta make sure the jews don't ruin it all

[kahljorn]

"So, if you see an organism, you should assume some intelligent entity designed it, and all other organisms, with some purpose in mind that we'll never be able to understand because its so complex and because He's so complex. "

So if you see a plant growing you assume "the green man" or a dryad or something grew it instead of sun, water and air?

[Emu]

I believe in dryads.

[kahljorn]

Well, sorry to offend your gay pagan religion.

[Big Papa Goat]

the dryad put the trees there so I could write a poem about how people fail to see the forest for the trees