# Thread: Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

1. Originally Posted by Swa
Of course not. Our observations validate them.
observation, hypothesis, testing validates them.

You're using complexity in a different manner. The common usage refers to an intricate arrangement (order). In information theory complexity is thus easier to describe and randomness is the lack of complexity.
So what.

You've steadfastly refused to define complexity meaningfully.

My definition is simple. The amount of information required to convey a description.

Like most definitions it has it's pros and cons

On the plus side it's theoretically posible to attach a bit value to anything we describe. Thus, mathematically it's useful.

There's a clear inverse relationship between 'Order' and 'complexity'

Order requires minimum description, Chaos absolute description, and systems would fall somewhere in between.

Very much the same theory behind JPEG image compression again demonstrating it's usefulness.

On the con side distinushing chaos from a intricate system may be difficult.

It does as its complexity is decreasing.
My examples clearly illustrate that complexity and entropy don't always have a simplistic linear relationship.

Would apply equally to species. Speciation is non-existent then.
If that makes you happy, others may find it useful.

Mechanisms are required for things to happen.
mechanisms are explanations of things happening.

It's actually baseless to assert something can happen because there's no mechanism to prevent it.
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that things will continue to happen in a historically consistant fashion barring some 'mechanism' to disrupt it.

2. Originally Posted by Techne
Well, when I began to exist I was a human being. I am a human being now. When I die I will cease to be a human being. Of course I undergo various changes (accidental if you want) as life goes on.
errr what?
sorry for jumping in ...i just read a few pages and came across this. Such misconception, you didnt begin to exist at all, you became conscious, big difference. You are made of non-living matter, calcium, iron, nitrogen ect these were formed in the stars. When they "died" they fused hydrogen and created these elements that now form you. Your story doesnt begin when you became conscious, its begins with the birth of universe.

Is it really so hard to believe that life can arise from elements, and improve (evolve) to become stable? Creationists have so many loopholes in their story not even funny. They try and dismiss evolution, because generally they afraid that science is becoming more powerful than their god, circumventing god's miracles. So instead of proving their side they try to disprove evolution.

Sad to say you cant disprove evolution. I can prove evolution to you in 4 hours, its called bacterial resistance. Introduced a sub-quantity of antibiotic to a bacterial culture and they evolve (i.e change to survive in their evironment) resistance. Then the counter arguement for that was "oh yes micro-evolution is real but macro evolution isnt" .... really? evolution is evolution end of story you cant sub divide things cause you feel like.

3. Originally Posted by alloytoo
So what.

You've steadfastly refused to define complexity meaningfully.

My definition is simple. The amount of information required to convey a description.

Like most definitions it has it's pros and cons

On the plus side it's theoretically posible to attach a bit value to anything we describe. Thus, mathematically it's useful.

There's a clear inverse relationship between 'Order' and 'complexity'

Order requires minimum description, Chaos absolute description, and systems would fall somewhere in between.

Very much the same theory behind JPEG image compression again demonstrating it's usefulness.

On the con side distinushing chaos from a intricate system may be difficult.
I said it's hard to quantify. Meaningful definition is hard because it depends on what it applies to. There are many different definitions. So you define it as the amount of information required to describe something. In information theory compressibility defines how much order is present. A string of repeating characters can be described in a few bytes but a string of words require more. The more information is needed the more random it is. You've just described entropy

Going with your definition it's still the same problem. Things will tend towards complexity but what is required is then less complexity.

Originally Posted by alloytoo
My examples clearly illustrate that complexity and entropy don't always have a simplistic linear relationship.
Never claimed they did. Thermal entropy increases in isolated systems. Informational entropy increases. If there was a simplistic relationship all that would be needed to decrease informational entropy is addition of energy but energy requires a mechanism for conversion.

Originally Posted by alloytoo
mechanisms are explanations of things happening.
Spinning electrons create a field. Electrons with opposing spins create fields of opposite polarity. Opposite poles attract and like poles repel each other. That happens because of magnetism. Continental drift happens because of the mechanism of plate tectonics. Until that was identified continental drift was largely rejected even though some proved it to occur. That's because things only happen if there is a mechanism and not when there's the lack of a mechanism preventing them.

Originally Posted by alloytoo
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that things will continue to happen in a historically consistant fashion barring some 'mechanism' to disrupt it.
See above.

Originally Posted by RiaX
Is it really so hard to believe that life can arise from elements, and improve (evolve) to become stable? Creationists have so many loopholes in their story not even funny. They try and dismiss evolution, because generally they afraid that science is becoming more powerful than their god, circumventing god's miracles. So instead of proving their side they try to disprove evolution.
Really? Evolution is dismissed because it's unproven. Don't come with that crap that science doesn't prove things. In medicine drugs are not approved until they are proven safe and effective. Also when people talk about proof it doesn't mean absolute but proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Things like the working of gravity, electricity, pathogens, etc. are proven. The theory of evolution from a universal common ancestor for some or all species is extremely weak in the proof department so evolutionists try to dismiss it and claim that only consistency applies to theories.

Your problem is you see all the evidence belonging to evolution so of course you'll make the mistake to think that people are trying to prove creation by disproving evolution. In reality the evidence doesn't belong to either side and can support both sides. So people are in fact disproving evolution AND proving creation. Get this fact straight from the get go and you won't create any more animosity here.

PS: Evolution doesn't fare so well in the loophole department either btw.

Originally Posted by RiaX
Sad to say you cant disprove evolution. I can prove evolution to you in 4 hours, its called bacterial resistance. Introduced a sub-quantity of antibiotic to a bacterial culture and they evolve (i.e change to survive in their evironment) resistance. Then the counter arguement for that was "oh yes micro-evolution is real but macro evolution isnt" .... really? evolution is evolution end of story you cant sub divide things cause you feel like.
Bacterial resistance doesn't prove that everything derives from a common ancestor so unless your definition of evolution is extremely broad like Techne's "evolution is change" you haven't proven it. If that was the definition nobody would have a problem with it. Being unable to disprove something doesn't mean it's proven. You can't disprove God. And the micro vs macro-evolution argument is a perfectly valid one recognised even by evolutionist such as Gould. It's not simply end of story because you feel like it.

4. Originally Posted by Swa
The problem is yours to prove. You haven't.
The evidence is yours to refute or explain in a different logical manner. You haven't.
They have been provided. That is enough showing. You can close your ears but that doesn't mean someone didn't speak to you.
They have not been provided. There is none showing. You think you are speaking sense but that doesn't mean you are actually doing so. In fact, to most here it is quite clear you aren't.
Nope.
Yep.
You observe small changes. Eugenie Scott cited a teacher whose pupils said after that "definition," "Of course species change with time! You mean that's Evolution?!"
So after all this you still don't know how what evolution actually is? Madness! Yes, *that* is evolution.
Using such a broad definition even an adapting creation qualifies as evolution.
Which is what your fellow brother in christ have been trying to get into your head with little success. Also no one here has made any kind of ****ing argument that because of evolution, there is no God. Jesus ****ing wept. And is still weeping. I think it is the abject stupidity that makes Him cry.
Funny that with all the "mountains" of evidence evolutionists can laughingly only provide the same handful of "intermediate" species. Again no shred of evidence has to be provided when you have provided virtually none to support it.
See 1st paragraph above.
You keep shifting the burden of proof, an especially difficult task to then accomplish because it's impossible to disprove a philosophical assumption. My feeling is you are trying to run away from Morton's demon and misusing science in your attempt. Quite amusing.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You are not humble at all.
Why thank you.
The burden remains on the person making the claim until they have met that burden. You haven't and neither has anybody before you.
Which claim now? Common decent? See above for that. Otherwise you need to try to communicate better.
Perhaps you should actually read comments to see their context. You really proclaim your stupidity loudly. LMFAO
Oh the irony...

5. Originally Posted by RiaX
errr what?
sorry for jumping in ...i just read a few pages and came across this. Such misconception, you didnt begin to exist at all, you became conscious, big difference.
I don't know where you think the misconception comes in. Just to be clear, I think the following is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial.
1) You are now an individual human being.
2) You did not exist as an individual human being 200 years ago.
3) Therefore, one can at least say that you began to exist as an individual human being some time between now and 200 years ago.

Sure, you also go in and out of consciousness now and then like when you sleep. But I don't think consciousness is a distinguishing quality of being a human being or some power that has to be exercised for something to be a human being. Animals are conscious too and when I am unconscious during sleep or a coma it does not mean I am no longer a human being.

Originally Posted by RiaX
You are made of non-living matter, calcium, iron, nitrogen ect these were formed in the stars. When they "died" they fused hydrogen and created these elements that now form you. Your story doesnt begin when you became conscious, its begins with the birth of universe.
Fair enough. One can perhaps argue that some parts of me being an individual human being began to exist some time earlier than I did. In fact this is trivially true. This of course does not change the simple fact that I, as an individual human being, began to exist.

Originally Posted by RiaX
Is it really so hard to believe that life can arise from elements, and improve (evolve) to become stable?
Not really. Things change or undergo change. Evolution happens.

Originally Posted by RiaX
Creationists have so many loopholes in their story not even funny. They try and dismiss evolution, because generally they afraid that science is becoming more powerful than their god, circumventing god's miracles. So instead of proving their side they try to disprove evolution.
Indeed. This is a problem. Like I said, those that argue that evolution negates creation or think evolution somehow is an argument against theism are as confused as those who think young earth creationism or ID or arguments against evolution are good arguments for theism.

6. Originally Posted by Swa
I said it's hard to quantify. Meaningful definition is hard because it depends on what it applies to. There are many different definitions. So you define it as the amount of information required to describe something. In information theory compressibility defines how much order is present. A string of repeating characters can be described in a few bytes but a string of words require more. The more information is needed the more random it is. You've just described entropy
Your definition remains ummm.... while mine has proven useful.

Going with your definition it's still the same problem. Things will tend towards complexity but what is required is then less complexity.
"required"? You mean you require it.

Never claimed they did. Thermal entropy increases in isolated systems. Informational entropy increases.
Does it? Always? Try again.

If there was a simplistic relationship all that would be needed to decrease informational entropy is addition of energy but energy requires a mechanism for conversion.
In some cases that might be all that's required.

7. Wait... is Swa talking about informational entropy in a discussion about the second law of thermodynamics to do with (in this instance) molecular systems?!?!?!

ROFL

8. Originally Posted by porchrat
Wait... is Swa talking about informational entropy in a discussion about the second law of thermodynamics to do with (in this instance) molecular systems?!?!?!

ROFL
As near as I can tell, his definition (or lack) of complexity follows some sort of "principle" of the second law of thermodynamics.

The relationship is a bit fuzzy wuzzy but we're expected to draw some parallel with order and complexity.

We should not however use any meaningful empirical measure of complexity, because it doesn't give the results he wants.

Oh and I think he's subtly implying agency by referring to natural processes as "Mechanisms"

9. Originally Posted by alloytoo
Oh and I think he's subtly implying agency by referring to natural processes as "Mechanisms"
He must be talking about chemical agents acting towards an end...

10. Originally Posted by alloytoo
As near as I can tell, his definition (or lack) of complexity follows some sort of "principle" of the second law of thermodynamics.

The relationship is a bit fuzzy wuzzy but we're expected to draw some parallel with order and complexity.

We should not however use any meaningful empirical measure of complexity, because it doesn't give the results he wants.

Oh and I think he's subtly implying agency by referring to natural processes as "Mechanisms"

11. Originally Posted by porchrat
I'm still trying to grasp the mental gymnastics that results in the denial of a "designer" in the whole "Intelligent Design" concept.

I mean the whole thing is set up to imply "agency", right up until the point where you want to identify the "agent" who then disappears in a cloud of smoke.

12. I've just been browsing rationalskeptismforums.org and found a great sticky for creationist types to read before attempting to post there. Specifically two points in this sticky are very relevant to what has been discussed recently in this thread and they are very well formulated responses.

[11] The tiresome conflation of evolutionary theory with abiogenesis (with Big Bang side salad).

A favourite one, this, among the creationists who come here. Which always results in the critical thinkers going into petunias mode (read Douglas Adams in order to understand that reference). Since so many creationists are woefully ill-educated in this area, I shall now correct that deficit in their learning.

Evolutionary theory is a theory arising from biology, and its remit consists of explaining the observed diversity of the biosphere once living organisms exist. The origin of life is a separate question, and one which is covered by the theory of naturalistic abiogenesis, which is a theory arising from a different scientific discipline, namely organic chemistry. Learn this distinction before posting, otherwise you will simply be regarded as ignorant and ill-educated.

While we're at it, evolutionary theory does not consider questions about the origin of Planet Earth itself, nor does it consider questions about the origin of the universe. The first of these questions is covered by planetary accretion theory, the second by cosmology, both of which arise from physics. As a consequence of learning this, if you subsequently erect the tiresome conflation of evolutionary theory with the Big Bang or the origin of the Earth, be prepared to be laughed at.

As a corollary of the above, it is time to deal with:

[12] The Pasteur canard.

We have had several people erecting this canard here, and it usually takes the form of the erection of the statement "life does not come from non-life", usually with a badly cited reference to the work of Louis Pasteur. This particular piece of duplicitous apologetics, apart from being duplicitous, is also fatuous. The reason being that Louis Pasteur erected his "Law of Biogenesis" specifically for the purpose of refuting the mediaeval notion of spontaneous generation, a ridiculous notion which claimed that fully formed multicellular eukaryote organisms arose directly from dust or some similar inanimate medium. First, the modern theory of abiogenesis did not exist when Pasteur erected this law; second, the modern theory of abiogenesis does not postulate the sort of nonsense that abounded in mediaeval times (and which, incidentally, was accepted by supernaturalists in that era); and third, as a methodologically rigorous empiricist, Pasteur would wholeheartedly accept the large quantity of evidence provided by modern abiogenesis researchers if he were still alive.
I would recommend anybody to read this sticky as it outlines all the major angles which creationists use to attack science. Can find it here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/cr...429.html#p3674

13. Originally Posted by cyghost
The evidence is yours to refute or explain in a different logical manner. You haven't.
Oh jees. It was but you keep just dismissing it.

Originally Posted by cyghost
They have not been provided. There is none showing. You think you are speaking sense but that doesn't mean you are actually doing so. In fact, to most here it is quite clear you aren't.

Yep.
Evolutionists don't want to see the evidence. They don't want to consider it. They don't want to take in what it all means because this is what happens when one does.

Originally Posted by cyghost
So after all this you still don't know how what evolution actually is? Madness! Yes, *that* is evolution.
Theories that explain everything explain nothing. Madness indeed.

Originally Posted by cyghost
Which is what your fellow brother in christ have been trying to get into your head with little success. Also no one here has made any kind of ****ing argument that because of evolution, there is no God. Jesus ****ing wept. And is still weeping. I think it is the abject stupidity that makes Him cry.
So God just took different genes and put them together to make separate creatures and then took genes from different creatures and implanted them in others. Fits perfectly with all the mountains of evidence. Fits better actually and it's just change, shifting of atoms, it's evolution.

Originally Posted by cyghost
Which claim now? Common decent? See above for that. Otherwise you need to try to communicate better.
Yes common descent.

Originally Posted by cyghost
Oh the irony...
Irony indeed.

Originally Posted by Techne
Fair enough. One can perhaps argue that some parts of me being an individual human being began to exist some time earlier than I did. In fact this is trivially true. This of course does not change the simple fact that I, as an individual human being, began to exist.
I'm surprised you didn't see the contradiction in his post. He claims you existed since the start of the universe but then that your atoms were created in stars. Which one is it?

Originally Posted by alloytoo
"required"? You mean you require it.
Common sense requires it.

Originally Posted by alloytoo
Does it? Always? Try again.
It does.

Originally Posted by alloytoo
In some cases that might be all that's required.
You mean in some cases all that's required is a mechanism? Exactly what I said. Pity no mechanism has been provided then.

Originally Posted by porchrat
Wait... is Swa talking about informational entropy in a discussion about the second law of thermodynamics to do with (in this instance) molecular systems?!?!?!

ROFL
Pity you choose to ignore stuff as you admitted or you wouldn't be laughing in ignorance.

Originally Posted by alloytoo
I'm still trying to grasp the mental gymnastics that results in the denial of a "designer" in the whole "Intelligent Design" concept.

I mean the whole thing is set up to imply "agency", right up until the point where you want to identify the "agent" who then disappears in a cloud of smoke.
Denial of a designer? You seem confused.

14. Originally Posted by DrJohnZoidberg
I've just been browsing rationalskeptismforums.org and found a great sticky for creationist types to read before attempting to post there. Specifically two points in this sticky are very relevant to what has been discussed recently in this thread and they are very well formulated responses.

I would recommend anybody to read this sticky as it outlines all the major angles which creationists use to attack science. Can find it here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/cr...429.html#p3674
That's just someone's opinion. As I showed biology textbooks don't treat it as a separate question. It only becomes a separate question suddenly when it's a problem.

And knowing what Pasteur would accept now as well? Consulting mediums are they?

15. Originally Posted by Swa
Common sense requires it.
Why does common sense require that things become less complex?

It does.
Seems to me an isolated system with no entropy could be as easy to describe as an isolated system at maximum entropy.

The bits in between, where entropy is changing, now they're more complex.

Denial of a designer? You seem confused.
I encounter it frequently, I call it the "Peter Syndrome"

Would you care to define the Designer in ID?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•