Debate:Specified complexity

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(The elephant in the room)
Line 387: Line 387:
 
Because Darwinian evolution paints the picture.... and then tries to insert some trivial things that SEEM to be evidence.... And start the discussion around those trivialities... ANYONE SUPPORTING DARWINIAN evolution (random mutation + Natural selection)... Will have to bring AN EXAMPLE of a mutation or an evolutionary process that has been shown to develop specified complexity.... If these example (ON WHICH THE WHOLE THEORY RESTS) can't be given.... THERE IS NOT POINT in discussing trivialities........--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 
Because Darwinian evolution paints the picture.... and then tries to insert some trivial things that SEEM to be evidence.... And start the discussion around those trivialities... ANYONE SUPPORTING DARWINIAN evolution (random mutation + Natural selection)... Will have to bring AN EXAMPLE of a mutation or an evolutionary process that has been shown to develop specified complexity.... If these example (ON WHICH THE WHOLE THEORY RESTS) can't be given.... THERE IS NOT POINT in discussing trivialities........--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 
:I'm sorry but [[word salad|I have no idea what you're saying]], you also still haven't defined specified complexity. [[User:Christopher|Christopher]] ([[User talk:Christopher|talk]]) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 
:I'm sorry but [[word salad|I have no idea what you're saying]], you also still haven't defined specified complexity. [[User:Christopher|Christopher]] ([[User talk:Christopher|talk]]) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 +
 +
Um... you do understand what I am saying... The type of mutations necessary for processes that supposedly evolved by RANDOM MUTATION + natural selection NEED TO BE DEMONSTRATED.... Mutations do happen most are neutral many are damaging.... And a very small portion in bacteria can be called beneficiary (DIFFERENT kind of beneficiary...)... You will have to bring an example that mutations that would be responsible for functions such as balance, blood clotting, feeling of thirst, corneal reflex, gag reflex, cough relfex etc.... All of these functions serve VITAL purposes.... And I would like to see the TYPE of random mutation that has been demonstrated to increase these type of VITAL functions--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:37, 21 April 2017

Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by kingdamian1.

Contents

A call to order

@Kingdamian1 There is no explicit mention of Darwinism in the 3 points. Would it be acceptable if we add "Darwinian" in point (c)?
  • (a) you defined "rhodanese is specified" as "Rhodanese's chief purpose is to detoxify cyanide"
  • (b) you defined "rhodanese is complex" as "effective, detailed, intricate"
  • (c) you didn't provide evidence against, and I didn't provide evidence for, Darwinian evolution of rhodanese
Please confirm. --Cmonk (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean I didn't provide evidence against... Rhodanese is supposed to be evidence against DARWINIAN (purely naturalistic) evolution!Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not provide a properly peer-reviewed paper, which is the only thing that I consider scientific evidence in this conversation (remember earlier you told me this is about science, not personal belief or feelings). We can make it explicit.
  • (a) you defined "rhodanese is specified" as "Rhodanese's chief purpose is to detoxify cyanide"
  • (b) you defined "rhodanese is complex" as "effective, detailed, intricate"
  • (c) you did not provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence against, and I did not provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence for, Darwinian evolution of rhodanese
Please confirm. --Cmonk (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will prepare my conjecture and come back later (I don't know exactly when). --Cmonk (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure.. but remember... explanations such as it was by chance is not really an explanation!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry — we'll all work together to ensure mutual intellectual honesty when it comes to what does and does not constitute an explanation (i.e. what has and what doesn't have explanatory value, respectively). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for it... Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A request

Can 'someone' do a summary of the actual discussion points - there seems to be much verbiage and little actual content.

The 'bitter almond trees and peach trees' are immune to the cyanide/precursor they produce so there' seems to be about the level of the argument.

Evolution is the product of adaptation to needs, preferences and the environment, and the law of unintended consequences (which applies even when/particularly when other species exert pressure on a species to adapt). 86.191.125.251 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"much verbiage and little actual content" is the best summary for this discussion. Kingdamian1 claims that Dembski's specified complexity is a scientific concept (it isn't). He provided a list of examples allegedly showing that evolution is impossible. The second example was rhodanese (the first one was about sexual behavior and I guess nobody wanted to go there). I showed that he didn't meet his burden of proof. There were additional discussions about other topics (nature of evidence, how to test ID) that didn't really go anywhere. --Cmonk (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

All of you are free to mock me in whatever way you wish--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(Eating more popcorn) 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How much do 'evolution and the law of unintended consequences' interact? Human ears did start out as 'bits of jaw bone' after all.

Which drink is flavoured with 'slightly crushed peach/apricot seeds'? 31.51.113.89 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean... However... if you want to call Darwinism and common descent... science... then you should bring an example of the type of mutation or an evolutionary process that would be necessary for such things... So far no one does this... All you do is obfuscate!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

'Somewhere back in evolutionary history' jaws were composed of several bones - some of which evolved into ear bones. #You# have to define God-science.

And I was referring to an alcoholic drink (not thujone flavoured) 31.51.113.89 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You are free to believe that bovines and cataceans share a common ancestor for all I care... Stop making it look like it is a PROVEN FACT!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So here's a theory

The main reason why Kingdamian1 has decided to spend the day arguing in circles favor of Intelligent Design is because today is 4/20 — and consequently, he's stoned out of his goddamned mind. Plausible? Yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

He must've lost track of time and started early because this has been going on since the 16th. Christopher (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I DO NOT ABUSE psychoactive drugsKingdamian1 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Denial? Classic proof. Checkmate, theists. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand why you make such conclusion... Rational wiki is a joke... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
In case it wasn't obvious enough to you — I'm joking. "Denial is proof", lol. Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


The elephant in the room

...Do we even tell him that entertaining the concept of an intelligent designer merely opens up another insurmountable problem? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

SUCH A SHAME Christopher doesn't mention the TYPE OF MUTATIONS necessary... Would have started a MEDICAL REVOLUTION! Maybe an example in an organism... where such mutations have been documented!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You didn't listen to the whole clip, I hear. For shame. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I did listen... It's full of innacuracies (APPENDIX IS NOT VESTIGAL)............. Zahid, Aliya (2004-04-01). "The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ". Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP. 14 (4): 256–258. ISSN 1022-386X. PMID 15228837................ Before going on... a person should at least have a BASIC understaning of Anatomy--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
C'mon, buddy — give old Christopher a break, will you? Look at the "BIGGER PICTURE", like you said above? Because I assure you, an absolute pre-requisite of even having this discussion in the first place is that any and all heights of ignorance be forgiven a priori. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ignorance? You want to talk about ignorance... Can you bring an example of A SINGLE MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS known to develop specified complexity? Just one?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
...and that, kids, is where we get the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
NO!!! THAT IS NOT WANT I MEANT... I am specifically asking for an example of a mutation necessary... IF THESE CANT BE GIVEN... Why assume they exist?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Very good — the burden of proof makes a much belated (though all the more welcome) appearance! Now, that's one sturdy nut you brought up there, Kingdamian — why should we assume things exist for which proof can't be given? Let's ponder this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@People in this section: I would like to get a confirmation from Kingdamian1 and it is going to take me a while to write my conjecture. Could you please wait for a while before changing the layout and adding more discussions? Thanks.
@Kingdamian1 The updates overlapped, could you please answer my comment above? --Cmonk (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Kingdamian, scroll up and reply to Cmonk. He actually deserves your attention. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cmonk... I will reply to your comments in our section.... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Reverend... What proof of a designer would you accept... I can provide the unmoved mover.... the first cause.... and telological arguments as proof--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@King Whoa there. Please. The Unmoved Mover (UM), the First Cause (FC), and the Teleological argument (TA) have been around for a long time (since Aquinas, who, by the way, was the first to propose them to my knowledge) and have a lot of flaws. The three don't in any way argue for an intelligent designer or a god. The FC may just be a giant cosmic rock. Think about it. If a giant, cosmic rock falls off a giant, cosmic cliff and starts everything off, then we have an FC. The UM argument does much the same thing but states that there was a previously unmoved thing that sets into motion all other things. If the rock is first unmoved and then, by its own volition, falls and sets everything into motion, then we haven't an intelligent designer. The TA is a slightly better argument, but we can show that there are complex things that don't have designers, like innate human morality. Unless, of course, human morality was designed. Meh (You) 02:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Um... I don't know where to begin... You display breath taking ignorance... the article... Since the rock itself needs a CAUSE it is clear that the FC is something that DOES NOT OPPERATE UNDER our rules....... Same goes for the unmoved mover..... If you believe that human morality is a product of Random Mutations + Natural selecetion... I do not have any desire to continue this conversation... thank you!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Now, now, Kingdamian — there's no need to sound salty. Koi was just trying to participate in the discussion like the rest of us. You can't blame the boy for taking the time to engage with your talking points, can you? But, regardless. Give me some time and I'll get back to you, if your mood allows for it (hehe). Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I made this template because of this post.Salty.gif127.0.0.1 (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
(Throes popcorn at kingdamian) So... If a god/s did make us, which one/s did? And why did he/she/them put so much useless stuff in the human body? Geting old seems like a big flaw in the design. Or you know Wisdom Teeth or the Appendix or Male Nipples and I could go on. You humans have week bodys too. Get hit just right and boom, you're gone. Its all most sad. (Eating more popcorn) 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... where do I even begin... First Appendix IS NOT VESTIGAL......... Zahid, Aliya (2004-04-01). "The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ". Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP. 14 (4): 256–258. ISSN 1022-386X. PMID 15228837.................... PLEASE GET SOME UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC ANATOMY before "throwing pop corn".... NO ORGAN CAN BE PROCLAIMED vestigal... just because we do not understand its function as of yet... As in the example of the appendix... many organs were considered vestigal... Even if the organs are useless THIS HAS 0 INSIGHT to offer... This would be the example of de-evolution instead of evolution... And prove my point that RANDOM MUTATIONS + Natural selection CANNOT (WILL NOT... SHOULD NOT) be responsible for specified complexity! So... all you are doing is PROVING MY POINT... secondly... you are asking questions about THEOLOGY... It is purposeless to answer these questions if you dont accept INTELLIGENCE... WOULD U TRY to explain why the earth is round to someone who does not believe the earth exists????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course the earth dose not exist. We are all in the matrix. You, my goodman can't prove I'm wrong. For all you know I am just a very good chatterbot. 2d4chanfag (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you might want to review thisKingdamian1 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Bahaha..GaGaha(choking and coughing on popcorn) The same can be said about this gory damn debate. You just can't think that there is something out there that mead humans, you're too smart for that. But come on now, its not like The Reaper is comeing to get us or anything. 2d4chanfag (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"NO ORGAN CAN BE PROCLAIMED vestigal"
So we can ignore pseudogenes, the tailbone, wisdom teeth, behavioural things like goosebumps, the palmar grasp reflex, and the plica semilunaris of conjunctiva? Good to know. Also, kudos to you for picking out the most obvious flaw in my argument (it was there on purpose!). The rock would also need a cause, but in this case, it doesn't because I don't want it to and because I need a first cause. Remind you of another, slightly more divine, being? Yeah, I thought it was the Goat at first too, but turns out, it's God. Surprise. God has no cause because.. because.. err.. beca- oh it's because we need him to have no cause so that we can have a coherent argument. But of course. Good thing he's exempt from the rules, too. Meh (You) 13:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
False. The only organ a human needs is the brain, but that brain dose need to be on life support. 2d4chanfag (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Mmm, looking back at it again for a second, your statement says organs. Don't go all caps on me or all 'You display breath taking[sic] ignorance'. I caught the mistake already. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the body is full of vestigial structures and yes, the appendix is still vestigial. I'll dissect a quote then give the link. Quote,
"Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria that help us digest food. The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrhoeal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness. Another example of anatomy lagging behind lifestyle, according to Mount Sinai's Laitman, is collateral circulation. Certain systems of veins and arteries ensure blood flow when the main paths are blocked or damaged. The systems appear to be truly vestigial, at least for now."
Unquote. Now, let's go through it so you don't get to take anything out of context. While he does say that it stores beneficial bacteria, note that this was helpful long ago during a dirtier lifestyle. It is currently useless as we don't live dirty lives anymore and with things like probiotics and stool transfers we don't need an organ to keep bacteria for us. Also note that at the end, he says that both systems are vestigial. That's a vestigial organ for you. Read the full article here (I S2G don't quote mine). Meh (You) 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"breath taking ignorance" All the time. When someone is smarter then you, bring them down to your level and then beat them whit experience. 2d4chanfag (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh my goodness... please, at least re-read what you write... That is WISHFUL thinking... You want to assume that some organs were useful in prehistoric times and now are lost... This is NOT science... Just because we do not know the EXACT function of a single organ DOES NOT mean it doesnt exist.... NO ORGAN CAN BE PROCLAIMED VESTIGIAL!!!! But I will go one by one through your examples

1)pseudogenes... a section of a chromosome that is an imperfect copy of a functional gene..... This is expected... since your DNA is a copy of a copy of a copy from your ancestors....

2)tailbone-it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx. Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx. The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e., defecation, continence, etc.): the levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through the anococcygeal raphe, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.[8] Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: the anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine. Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.[9] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.

An extension of the pia mater, the filum terminale, extends from the apex of the conus, and inserts on the coccyx.................... If you want to believe it is a remnant of a tail......go ahead... just don't proclaim it as science

3) Wisdom tooth each of the four hindmost molars in humans, which usually appear at about the age of twenty..... I don't know why would someone consider this as a remnant of some animal ancestry

4) Goosebumps Goosebumps are an automatic response to different stimuli (cold, feeling of awe, etc)... You can believe that it is a vestigial function... and a remnant of fur... But please, don't tell us its sceince...

5) Palmar grasp reflex I don't know what is vestigial about this... Just one of many reflexes that occur in new-borns... You might as well have brought the Babinski sign here...


6)Plica ....................... It functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage via the lacrimal lake, and to permit greater rotation of the globe, for without the plica the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement.............. Dartt, Darlene A. (2006). "The Conjunctiva—Structure and Function". Duane's Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Chapter 2. Retrieved November 8, 2012.


Vestigial organs are a sign of de-evolution not evolution.... AND THEY WOULD PROVE MY POINT that evolution CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE for specified complexity!

Since I have shown that the type of mutations that would be necessary for ape-man (not to mention microbe-man) evolution.... And since these type of mutations have stopped occurring and their examples can't be brought..... I would use the Ocuums razor.... and dispose of this junk....

To answer your second question... Since we see signs of intelligence.... And the 1st cause is this INTELLIGENCE.... And he is able to design us.... THEN HE DOES NOT operate under the same laws.... So he should not be subject to same laws as us! NO I AM NOT BEATING YOU BY EXPERIENCE.... you are beating yourself by going through mental gymnastics to defend a WRONG POSITION! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(smiles whit a mouth full of popcorn) I was thinking about myself being experienced. 2d4chanfag (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You have a habit of saying "you can believe x, but don't say it's science" without explaining why it isn't science, it'd be great if you could do so in future. Christopher (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Because Darwinian evolution paints the picture.... and then tries to insert some trivial things that SEEM to be evidence.... And start the discussion around those trivialities... ANYONE SUPPORTING DARWINIAN evolution (random mutation + Natural selection)... Will have to bring AN EXAMPLE of a mutation or an evolutionary process that has been shown to develop specified complexity.... If these example (ON WHICH THE WHOLE THEORY RESTS) can't be given.... THERE IS NOT POINT in discussing trivialities........--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying, you also still haven't defined specified complexity. Christopher (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... you do understand what I am saying... The type of mutations necessary for processes that supposedly evolved by RANDOM MUTATION + natural selection NEED TO BE DEMONSTRATED.... Mutations do happen most are neutral many are damaging.... And a very small portion in bacteria can be called beneficiary (DIFFERENT kind of beneficiary...)... You will have to bring an example that mutations that would be responsible for functions such as balance, blood clotting, feeling of thirst, corneal reflex, gag reflex, cough relfex etc.... All of these functions serve VITAL purposes.... And I would like to see the TYPE of random mutation that has been demonstrated to increase these type of VITAL functions--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools