Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou really need to read that post in the context of the other 20 or so I´ve written. I´m just trying to find where Kelly Jay stands on these issues. The point is that if he doesn´t believe speciation can happen even in a laboratory conditons then we are having a different argument to the one I think we are having. I think Kelly Jay is arguing that evolution by natural selection is capable of generating new species, but not at a rate sufficient to explain all life in terms of a last common ancestor of all Eukaryotic cells. I still disagree with this, but it is not a completely ridiculous position to take, unlike the strong objection.
….The strong objection is that it is impossible, even by forced breeding in laboratory conditions, to start out with one species and produce two types of decedents where individuals of one type cannot produce viable offspring when paired with one of the other types - in other words speciation is not possible due to artificial selection never mind the ...[text shortened]... ecome TOO sceptical and cautious of a theory if there is a great deal of evidence supporting it.
Dogs are all the same species. You can cross a Great Dane with a Chiuwawa and get viable offspring, although you probably need the Great Dane to be the female and use IVF. What I´m talking about is the cell biology of the two species being sufficiently different that an embryo just can´t form.
When you cross Tigers with Lions, the offspring have problems due to the size control genes going haywire and (depending on which way round the cross is) you end up with an animal that is truely huge. It couldn´t survive in the wild as it couldn´t hunt enough food to maintain its weight. With species even further apart the embryo won´t form because, for example, the structural differences are too large, the number of chromosomes is different, or other problems emerge due to incompatible cell chemistries.
I think Kelly Jay´s basic line of argument is that the outcome we have is improbable. Well, yes it is. the chances of the exact set of species we have now being the outcome when you look at what was around in the late Edicarian is kind of low. However what that misses is that the set of possible outcomes which are like what we have now is large and we really shouldn´t be suprised to find we are the product of one.
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, I am attacking your line of reasoning and not debating the nature or existence of your designer. Your argument is as follows:
Well you want an answer to your question, and when you find someone
who would like to debate the creation of the designer you have in
mind you and they can talk about it.
In the mean time, I have already put forward questions you are not
willing to engage me on the questions I have asked. So I will look for
those that desire to discuss design, you can look for someone to talk
to about the designers, design.
Kelly
(1) One cannot accept the emergence of something as complex as the human eye by chance.
(Although you misunderstand the theory of evolution as predicting small numbers of large improbable changes, when it really predicts large numbers of small probable changes, your assumption is actually a good one - unlikely events are indeed unlikely - although to be fair, they are not impossible unless explicitly shown to be so.)
(2) Human eyes exist.
(3) Since human eyes exist, and they could not have emerged by chance, they must have emerged on purpose.
(4) If human eyes emerged on purpose, they must have been designed. Hence, there must be a designer.
If you accept the above as true, the following which continues your line of reasoning exactly must also be true:
(1a) One cannot accept the emergence of something as complex as a designer by chance.
(2a) The designer exists, a per (4) above.
(3a) Since the designer exists, and could not have emerged by chance, the designer must have emerged on purpose.
(4a) If the designer emerged on purpose, the designer must have been designed. Hence, there must be a designer-designer.
This argument leads to an infinite regression, since you can always continue the argument by introducing a new designer. Therefore, even if the above argument were valid (which it is not), it could not be shown to demonstrate anything since you would need an infinite amount of supporting arguments for each link in the chain. If you insist that "the buck must stop" somewhere, you are insisting that your own argument is invalid, and again you have demonstrated nothing.
Therefore, your objection to evolution on the grounds of personal incredulity is in fact groundless. As DeepThought has pointed out several times, there may in fact be a designer, however your argument does not demonstrate it. You should really try another tack.
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6[/i]Can you point to the designer and tell me what it is you are attemping
Again, I am attacking your line of reasoning and not debating the nature or existence of [b]your designer. Your argument is as follows:
(1) One cannot accept the emergence of something as complex as the human eye by chance.
[i](Although you misunderstand the theory of evolution as predicting small numbers of large improbable changes, when it really p designer, however your argument does not demonstrate it. You should really try another tack.[/b]
to talk about? You have some clue as to how your designer is put
together, what are the parts, and so on? If not, nothing you and I
can say will move any conversation forward.
In the mean time, I have a conversation I'm in, and your points are
really not part of it. Since I have already pointed out, we can see
design without knowing who the desiger is, and so I'm not going to
address any more of these questions.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is no need to "point to the designer", or describe any of its connections or inner workings. The only characteristic you have ascribed to it is its ability to operate with intent, and that is enough for your logic to fail.
[/i]Can you point to the designer and tell me what it is you are attemping
to talk about? You have some clue as to how your designer is put
together, what are the parts, and so on? If not, nothing you and I
can say will move any conversation forward.
In the mean time, I have a conversation I'm in, and your points are
really not part of it. Since I ha ...[text shortened]... owing who the desiger is, and so I'm not going to
address any more of these questions.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou mean that you give up the discussion because you now know that you are wrong? That your line of discussion is faulty and you are about to change view?
... and so I'm not going to address any more of these questions.
"Don't want to continue..." Yes, that's a good sign for you to accept your defeat.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat´s not the point, the point is that speciation can occur without an intervention at the molecular level.
Did it just happen or did someone use their brains to make it so?
Kelly
This means that what I called the strong objection to natural selection as a model for speciation is more or less ruled out, as speciation is possible without a designer who directly tinkers around with DNA. The weaker objection to natural selection survives this as it doesn´t deny that speciation can occur due to selection pressures, just that it is too improbable, if natural selection alone is driving it, to explain the number of species present.
I had a look at the abstracts of the write ups some of the fruit fly experiments (refs 10 and 11 on the wikipedia page) and they do not demonstrate complete speciation, they demonstrate splitting into two populations which do not breed with each other, not (necessarily) into two populations which cannot breed with each other.
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you agree that there is randomness used at casinos in their various gambling machines? Do you also agree that the fact that the casino always wins is both predictable and decidedly non-random? The amount the casino wins on any given play, or even their overall total winnings for the day may be random, but the overall result is most definitely not random.
You are saying that there are no random mutations within DNA?
Those are the supposed to be the driving force of these changes.
You deny this? Just trying to get a feel for you where you think these
changes are occuring.
Kelly
Processes like Natural Selection involve random changes, but the results are not random. The result is the survival of the fittest. When the environment changes and the change is not so drastic as to cause immediate extinction, a species will almost invariably (non-random) evolve traits that enable the species to survive better in the new environment. Even when the environment does not change, species tend to evolve new traits that better enable them to survive.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI didn't know they got as far as fruit flies yet, but on the bacterial and multicellular level I'm sure you can find plenty on artificial speciation. Other than that, more obvious examples are certain species of livestock, who have been manipulated by man to the extent that there is no chance they'll survive in the wild.
That´s not the point, the point is that speciation can occur without an intervention at the molecular level.
This means that what I called the strong objection to natural selection as a model for speciation is more or less ruled out, as speciation is possible without a designer who directly tinkers around with DNA. The weaker objection to natural sel ...[text shortened]... th each other, not (necessarily) into two populations which cannot breed with each other.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, I was never in that discussion, he wants to talk about the design
You mean that you give up the discussion because you now know that you are wrong? That your line of discussion is faulty and you are about to change view?
"Don't want to continue..." Yes, that's a good sign for you to accept your defeat.
of a designer, and has no idea outside of intent what the designer is.
Not much I care to talk about there, had you been reading the posts
you'd seen that.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan you do me a favor, repost to this what it is you'd like me to
Kellyjay,
I am still waiting for you to respond to my challenge to this claim:
[b]given the enormous amount of variables to just occur not only in the right sequence, but at the right time and so on, should stagers the imagination in my opinion. [/b]
address?
Kelly
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYour suggesting that changes within a kind/family/whatever shows
That´s not the point, the point is that speciation can occur without an intervention at the molecular level.
This means that what I called the strong objection to natural selection as a model for speciation is more or less ruled out, as speciation is possible without a designer who directly tinkers around with DNA. The weaker objection to natural sel ...[text shortened]... th each other, not (necessarily) into two populations which cannot breed with each other.
us we can get new organs or systems that were never seen before,
that those types of changes prove this? Do we see flies at the
beginning and flies at the end? Can you show me a worm that grew
eyes, feathers, wings, and started flying in a lab? I'm very
comfortable with changes like that takes one kind of dog and turn it
into another, or flies, or rabbits and so on. Those types of variations
are within a kind/family/whatever you want to call the groupings.
Those are established systems and I acknowledge change over time
within them, but they do maintain the common theme or traits
throughout. If you can show me dog turning into a duck or
something along those lines, I'd say you win the discussion.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo the "so I'm not going to address any more of these questions." quote of yourse doesn't mean that you are going to abandon Science Forum and go to the Spiritual Forum where you and your crazy anti-science ideas of yours belongs?
No, I was never in that discussion, he wants to talk about the design
of a designer, and has no idea outside of intent what the designer is.
Not much I care to talk about there, had you been reading the posts
you'd seen that.
Kelly
No? Darn...