So arf9999 accuses of a few straw men and falacious arguments.
Here we go:
Me:
I ask the questions:
1) What law says billions of small changes add up to big changes? (no answer).
2) Billions of small changes over billions of years can give billions of other small changes. Why not? (No answer)
I assert:
It is quite clear that natural selection does absolutely nothing
The reason being NS is merely:
A) "the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes."
B) "Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust." It does not dictate that small changes should add up to big changes.
Natural selection does nothing, plain and simple.
I ask to add a few billion changes to this screen. (naturally of course)
I assert that you should get a billion changes over billions of years... naturally as it is merely "the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes".
I ask the question whether you are going to watch MTV over a few billion years on that screen? Why not do you think?
arf9999 asserts the
following:
1) The above analogy is fallacious.
2) In a completely closed system, "random" changes will result in random outcomes.
3) It's a good thing we don't live in a closed system...
I ask:
Is the universe an open system?
To which he replied:
1) Accuses me of
yet another fallacious argument.
2) Says he is not in the mood to explain these concepts to me,
3) And claims I wilfully ignore any idea that is contrary to my position.
From here on he decides to actually address the analogy, after two accusations of fallacious arguments.
Before we carry on, a few things need to be cleared.
1) We don't know if the universe is a closed system. It might be, it might not be. It probably is and arf9999
agrees.
2) How arf9999 came to the idea that the above analogy was refering to a closed system only he knows. His accusation of a fallacious argument seems to be based on ignorance and nothing more.
3) One has to wonder how he is going to reconcile his assertion that the universe is unlikely to be an open system and simultaneously assert that in a completely closed system, "random" changes will result in random outcomes.
arf9999, please reconcile the following. Interested in how you might see it:
A) The universe is unlikely to be an open system
B) In a completely closed system (such as the likelyhood of the universe), "random" changes will result in random outcomes.
C) Agents yield non-random changes in a system that is probably closed (the universe).
To continue:
Arf9999 says:
1) I am snowing "snow" on a screen of some description.
2) Asserts that I argue random changes appearing on the screen will never become a TV broadcast, because all they are is random specks, and random changes will result in random outcomes.
All good observations....
Now for the actual explanation (after two empty accusations) of why he thinks it is a fallacious argument.
1. One frame of "snow" on a TV screen has NO impact on the following frame. The snow is the result of an RF tuner showing electromagnetic noise. So changes in one frame will not have any impact on the next frame. The snow is the RESULT, not a cause.
2. It is fallacious to argue that no pattern will emerge, because the source of that electromagnetic noise is cosmic, and there are many examples of completely naturally occurring EM patterns. Google "Quasar" or "Pulsar" for instance.
3. Thirdly, your analogy is a straw-man, and is not approached from any form of meaningful debate. You would do better to argue your position in a constructive manner rather than resorting to straw-men and red herrings. A good jumping off point would be for you to state your position clearly. And by this I don't mean quote-mining 300 other sites and blogs.
I replied:
The universe is an open system?
1) One time-frame of the universe has NO impact on the following frame. The effects in the universe are the result intelligible and fine-tuned laws resulting in the arrow of time and the effects we as agents observe. Changes in one time-frame of the universe will have no impact on the next frame. The effects you and I observe is the RESULT, not a cause.
2) Just no intelligent noise right? Like an agent...making a TV show, creating, manipulating and sending information...
3) Well, I might as well tell you the same thing since you have no coherent, non-self-refuting position either.
To which he replied:
1) It's unlikely, but I confess that I don't know. The fact is that it is irrelevant in your analogy, and within the context of the thread which is about evolution on Earth. Earth is not a closed system.
2) Mumbo-jumbo. Your analogy was oversimplified bull**** with no clear aim other than to troll in this thread.
3) And there is the straw-man.
4) Well you could, but you'd be wrong. I have a very clear position.
With the current data to hand, the ToE is the best fit to explain the evolution of species. The idea of external agency in the observed evolution of species in highly improbable and raises more problems than it solves. In fact the probability of agency in this process is many, many orders lower than that of the currently scientifically accepted process. "Front-loaded evolution" and "Intelligent Design" are concepts made up to force-fit the existing evidence into a pre-conceived model of fundamentalist God-based creationism, and are, as such, not science. I think that my position is clear. Now you.
Now me... wow now me...:erm:. Anyway.
Let's go over your accusations that the analogy is fallacious.
1) One frame of "snow" on a TV screen has NO impact on the following frame. The snow is the result of an RF tuner showing electromagnetic noise. So changes in one frame will not have any impact on the next frame. The snow is the RESULT, not a cause.
Me:
1) The snow is electromagnetic noise. Yes because an RF tuner pics up the information.
2) The infomation comes from some random source.
3) The source is probably electromagnetic radiation emitted from an external source.
4) Where does electromagnetic radiation come from? Self propagating waves formed as a result of matter and energy, and in this case, randomly interacting matter and energy.
Now bare in mind that the RF tuner is just picking up this EM noise (waves), and EM noise comes from randomly interacting matter and energy. How you come to the conclusion that "one frame of "snow" on a TV screen has NO impact on the following frame" and think it is even relevant to the analogy is a bit of a mystery. A frame does not have an effect on another frame, just like one time-frame of the universe has no effect on the next.
The RF-tuner picks up information as a result of (in this case) self propagating waves formed as a result of randomly interacting matter and energy.
And the same argument can be made for our observation of time. E.g.
We observe the passage of time (information) and it is the result of intelligible and fine-tuned laws.
2. It is fallacious to argue that no pattern will emerge, because the source of that electromagnetic noise is cosmic, and there are many examples of completely naturally occurring EM patterns. Google "Quasar" or "Pulsar" for instance.
I did not argue no pattern will emerge. Hence once again just your ignorance speaking here. I asked whether you are going to watch TV anytime soon. Patterns can emerge from random sources, no problem. The problem (and the piont) is they are not going to constantly emerge over a period of time to generate a TV show of any sort. You require intelligent input for that.
Or are you one of those people that believe the following image will emerge over a period of time from a random source without any intelligent input....(btw, natural selection does nothing)
Timepoint 1
Timepoint 2
Timepoint 3
Timepoint 4
Timepoint 5
3. Thirdly, your analogy is a straw-man, and is not approached from any form of meaningful debate.
I suppose by this you wish to imply the information on the screen is a closed system? Not quite, sorry (if that is what you imply). Yes the universe is likely a closed system, but the source of the EM is still part of some other open system, which is still ultimately part of the universe.
So the questions still stand.
1) What law says billions of small changes add up to big changes? As in the case of the EM noise having a random origin, how are random changes going to add up to yield that figure in timepoint 5 since natural selection does nothing.
2) Billions of small changes over billions of years can give billions of other small changes. Why not?
?
. Scientifically of course.
