Answering an evolutionist argument.

by hooberus 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    greendawn

    if some of these mutations happen to be advantageous (1)
    I can't imagine this being anything other than a random process driven by chance. (2)

    This is where you are going wrong. You understand well enough upto the sentence I haven marked (1), but your mistake is thinking that the selection process in (1) is correctly described as you do in (2).

    Whilst the VARIATION may well be random the SELECTION is not random. It is the entire point of the theory of natural selection... the selection is non random

    For example, say you assign six chacteristics like this;

    1: Brown Hair
    2: Black Hair
    3: Blonde Hair
    4: Red Hair
    5: Curly Hair
    6: Straight Hair

    ... and then roll a six-sided die to assign one to a test organism.

    The selection of which characteristic (or mutation) the test organism has is random.

    However, if the organisms with characteristic 4 produce more offspring in the environment they dwell in than characteristics 1-3 and 5 & 6, eventually all the organisms in that environment will have red hair. This is not random. It really is SO not random...!

    I know you've seen this explained a dozen times before in such threads. I hope the explanations you get on this thread are clearer and prevent you making this mistake again.

    With such a profound misunderstanding of evolution it is not surprising you've found it hard to see it as a credible theory.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    dawg said:

    Again, this whole argument is a straw man, making up the argument of your opponent so you can easily knock it down... there are those that have addressed the evolution of the eye and don't say one word about the subject of god in the process.

    I never said that the "logic" argument that I was answering in this thread was the sole argument that evolutionists use in regards to the formation of complex biological structures- but instead that it is used by some evolutionists. Since some evolutionists (here even) do use this very argument, I was not therefore "making up the argument" of my opponets to "easily knock it down."

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Dantheman said:

    Hooberus,

    I think you missed my point. Saying that God is some unobserved, unobserveable, non-mechanical something that had no beginning is an unverifiable, untestable, 'because I say so' assertion. It proves nothing.

    And the point that you miss is that specific design theory statements such as: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of biological life from non-life."; "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex biological systems (composed of componet parts) from non-complexity."; "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex electronic machines from non-complexity" etc., are not in themselves meant to discuss the characteristics of the designer at all- but instead are testable scientific formulations (often supported by accompanying scientific evidences).

    Furthermore, there is nothing in such statements that requires the designer to also share the characteristics of the things in question (such as also being an "electronic machine" themself), hense there is no required infinite regression of "intelligent designers"designers in such arguments.

    Now if the proponet of such statements as given above were to attempt to exclude for an irrevelant reason [like color] something that also is either observed to, or believed by them to also share in the above design arguments qualifying characters (such a having an origin and being a biological life)-then they would in fact be engaged in "special pleading". However, if they exclude nothing that is either observed, nor believed to have an origin and biological life [the statements qualifying characters] from the requirement, then they are not engading in any special pleading.

    As to the issue of the origin, (or non-origin) of God [which some evolutionists frequently attempt to bring into discussions of the origin of the design of biological systems],- he is not either observed, nor believed by anyone (creationists, theistic evolutionists, and even atheistic evolutionists)*, to share in all the specific characteristics found in the specific design arguments (such as given above). Hense, its not special pleading for creationists (in response to evolutionists attempts to inject God into such biological design requirements) to point out that such specific design arguments are not applicable to God.

    *atheistic evolutionists claim to have no belief in a real God at all (hense they don't believe in the existence of a real God being with any specific characteristics).

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Abaddon said:

    It is unbelivable that Creationists can think their argument against evolution ("design requires a designer") is NOT a fallacy simply because they say "but in this case our postulated designer doesn't need a designer because we say so".

    You are dropping the qualifying characters (which are either explicit or implicit in virtually all ID theories) when you represent the ID argument merely as "design requires a designer".

    Note how changes affect the following hypothetical argument:

    A. The design of complex electrionic equipment (composed of componet parts), that has an origin requires an intelligent designer.

    B. The design of complex electroinc equipment (composed of componet parts), that has an origin requires an intelligent designer.

    Note how the dropping of the qualifiers from example A changes the argument of those who advocate A into an caricature (example B.). It is then easier for a design opponet to falsely claim (based on B.) that this design example argument requires either 1.) an infinite regression of designers, or 2.) that the design advocates are engaged in "special pleading" if they then (in response to an opponets attempted inclusion of all designers) try to exclude any designer of any type from also "requiring an intelligent designer".

    Rather than vague caricatures ID opponets would do better to respond to specific ID theories like the following one (doing so taking into account its explicit qualifying characteristics [It should again be noted that virtually all ID arguments have either explicit or obvious implicit qualifiers.]: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of biological life from non-life" I think that they will find it much more difficult to convince others that "design" arguments require logical fallacies.

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    And the point that you miss is that specific design theory statements such as: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of biological life from non-life."; "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex biological systems (composed of componet parts) from non-complexity."; "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex electronic machines from non-complexity" etc., are not in themselves meant to discuss the characteristics of the designer at all- but instead are testable scientific formulations (often supported by accompanying scientific evidences).

    Furthermore, there is nothing in such statements that requires the designer to also share the characteristics of the things in question (such as also being an "electronic machine" themself), hense there is no required infinite regression of "intelligent designers"designers in such arguments .

    You emphasize the words "complex" and "complexity" quite a bit here. So, is your postulated god not complex? How could something possessive of a mind not have come about from prior causes? Because you say so?

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Hooberus,

    16-Apr-07 16:41 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 16:43 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 16:47 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 16:50 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 18:06 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 18:36 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 18:41 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 18:46 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 18:47 by hooberus: Correct formatting
    16-Apr-07 18:50 by hooberus: Correct formatting

    The process of evolution is not, I note, the exclusive preserve of the natural world.

    HS

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    I have no argument with evolutionist....If they want to believe they came from a fish with a mouth, an asshole and fins...then let them.

  • 2050
    2050

    TopHat, I would like to add that you also have a mouth, an asshole and fins (arms). No offence intended lol. Just making a point. Also, who said we came from that crazy thing? Many people find it hard to understand the power of evolution. They just can't see how one species can become something different. It should be quite easy to see how a sea dwelling species can become a land dwelling one, or the opposite. The closest relative to the seal is the bear. This is what happens when animals decide to return to the sea. [URL=http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=seal02fx3.jpg][IMG]http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4425/seal02fx3.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

  • 2050
  • 2050

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit