Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

And your evidence for this baseless assertion is ... ?

Hint: incredulity is not a form of evidence.

It is relatively easy to illustrate how a functioning organ can possibly achieve better functionality from individual mutations, thus enabling the fine tuning process. 

The difficulty is in imagining how the transition from no organ at all to functioning organ can be achieved by incremental mutations each of which has to give sufficient benefit to get passed on through natural selection.

I am fully aware that people like Richard Dawkins have used their considerable intelligence to think up scenarios which may allow such transitions within the natural selection process.  However, the unguided forces of nature will not have the intelligence required to take up this highly specific path, making the likelihood of such specific scenarios occurring without guidance somewhat questionable.

[Stranger]

You can of course presume that every one of the billions of mutations involved in the transition from single cell to human being were generated by random events.
You can of course presume that each one of these billions of mutations had sufficient survival benefit to be passed on by natural selection.
You can of course presume that whenever there was a change in environment, there were sufficient randomly generated beneficial mutations produced at the right time and place to ensure the survival of our ancestral species.

These are not presumptions, Alan, it's what the evidence is telling us. I also note that you completely ignore my post #43134, where I gave a graphs showing that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees shows almost exactly the same pattern as those caused by mutations amongst humans today. Mutations aren't entirely random because some types of mutation are more likely to occur than others (hence the observed pattern), however, they are random with respect to 'fitness'.

You can of course presume that God had nothing to do with it.

You have yet to provide one single, solitary, objective reason to think there is such a being, and if there were anything like that guiding evolution we might expect it to have done a far better job.

And you can presume that all these presumptions are just the end result of cause and effect reactions which began at the beginning of time.

And you can presume that your end reactions are somehow superior to my end reactions - even though all our reactions must be defined by forces of nature which are innocent of any bias.

None of which would actually change the fact that humans have evolved to be able to think in these abstract terms and are capable of considering evidence and coming to conclusions, and are also susceptible to various cognitive biases and even of being hijacked by blind faith and superstition in general.

Or you can use your God given freedom...

What you call 'freedom' has already been shown to be impossible, self-contradictory, and unimaginable nonsense.

...to conclude that you are more than just a cog in a material universe driven entirely by unavoidable physically driven reactions.

More misrepresentation.   

Again, have you come on here again just to mindlessly repeat the same old, failed script, that has already been addressed countless times before? Why do you seem to be so afraid of studying local arguments, learning something, and trying to come up with something better, or at least making an honest attempt at addressing the many answers you've had?

Why has somebody like you, with the education you've had, become so scared of learning and understanding?

[Stranger]

It is relatively easy to illustrate how a functioning organ can possibly achieve better functionality from individual mutations, thus enabling the fine tuning process. 

The difficulty is in imagining how the transition from no organ at all to functioning organ can be achieved my incremental mutations each of which has to give sufficient benefit to get passed on through natural selection.

I am fully aware that people like Richard Dawkins have used their considerable intelligence to think up scenarios which may allow such transitions within the natural selection process.

It's not just Richard Dawkins (why do theists obsess about him?), do you really think that this has been overlooked by all scientists for the past 160 years? The eye was always the classic example given by deniers, but of course how this can come about is readily understood. If you're interested in other organs, then you can do a search and find out what is known.

However, the unguided forces of nature will not have the intelligence required to take up this highly specific path, making the likelihood of such specific scenarios occurring without guidance somewhat questionable.

Just a statement of blind incredulity.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am constantly accused of not understanding the theory of evolution whenever I cast doubt on the feasibility of it all happening by the unguided, aimless forces of nature.
You can of course presume that every one of the billions of mutations involved in the transition from single cell to human being were generated by random events.
You can of course presume that each one of these billions of mutations had sufficient survival benefit to be passed on by natural selection.
You can of course presume that whenever there was a change in environment, there were sufficient randomly generated beneficial mutations produced at the right time and place to ensure the survival of our ancestral species.
You can of course presume that God had nothing to do with it.

You can presume that my doubts concerning the feasibility of the evolutionary process being entirely driven by random events are entirely unfounded.

And you can presume that all these presumptions are just the end result of cause and effect reactions which began at the beginning of time.

And you can presume that your end reactions are somehow superior to my end reactions - even though all our reactions must be defined by forces of nature which are innocent of any bias.

And again all you’ve done here is to replace the word you should be using (“reason”) with an inaccurate pejorative (“presume”) and hoped no-one notices. Just swap them back, and then re-read your post. Can you see the problem now – when assertions meet reasoning, there’s only one winner.

As you seem to be terrified of addressing arguments though, I suppose unqualified assertions is all we should ever expect from you right?     

Or you can use your God given freedom to conclude that you are more than just a cog in a material universe driven entirely by unavoidable physically driven reactions.

Except you’ve already been told that what you think to be evidence for this supposed god isn’t evidence at all (in response to which you just ran away again), so why on earth should I or anyone else think this wild and incoherent claim to be true?

[Gordon]

I am constantly accused of not understanding the theory of evolution whenever I cast doubt on the feasibility of it all happening by the unguided, aimless forces of nature.
You can of course presume that every one of the billions of mutations involved in the transition from single cell to human being were generated by random events.
You can of course presume that each one of these billions of mutations had sufficient survival benefit to be passed on by natural selection.
You can of course presume that whenever there was a change in environment, there were sufficient randomly generated beneficial mutations produced at the right time and place to ensure the survival of our ancestral species.
You can of course presume that God had nothing to do with it.

You can presume that my doubts concerning the feasibility of the evolutionary process being entirely driven by random events are entirely unfounded.

And you can presume that all these presumptions are just the end result of cause and effect reactions which began at the beginning of time.

And you can presume that your end reactions are somehow superior to my end reactions - even though all our reactions must be defined by forces of nature which are innocent of any bias.

Or you can use your God given freedom to conclude that you are more than just a cog in a material universe driven entirely by unavoidable physically driven reactions.

I think you've just invented the 'fallacy sardine tin' with this effort, Alan: in that you've managed to pack a school of them so tightly that they overlap each other.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is relatively easy to illustrate how a functioning organ can possibly achieve better functionality from individual mutations, thus enabling the fine tuning process.

The difficulty is in imagining…

“…difficult is in imagining…” is just you expressing your personal incredulity about something. Your incredulity is not an argument though, it’s just your incredulity. So what? 

…how the transition from no organ at all to functioning organ can be achieved my incremental mutations each of which has to give sufficient benefit to get passed on through natural selection.

That’s because you wrongly assume a binary: no organ at all vs the complete organ. That’s not what the evidence tells us though. Take an eye for example (which has evolved differently multiple times incidentally). All you’d need first would be a mutation for light sensitivity (so the host could tell night from day), then another mutation for dishing of the surface so light information became directional and so on through incremental stages until the various types of eyes we see in nature emerged.         

I am fully aware that people like Richard Dawkins have used their considerable intelligence to think up scenarios which may allow such transitions within the natural selection process.

No, he (and others) don’t just “think up” these things. They find evidence from multiple and corroborating sources that justify their hypotheses such that they become the accepted explanatory models. 

However, the unguided forces of nature will not have the intelligence required to take up this highly specific path, making the likelihood of such specific scenarios occurring without guidance somewhat questionable.

Ah, now your ignorance/misunderstanding of evolution and of reason is showing again. I’ve schooled you on this before and you just ignored the explanations I gave you, so I see little point in doing it again unless this time you’re prepared to try at least to address the arguments rather than just run away from them.

Are you?   

[Alan Burns]

Just a statement of blind incredulity.   

I was just illustrating the limitations of what can be expected from a blind process of natural selection with no specific goals.
I accept the evidence which has been discovered for the gradual transition from single cells to life as we know it, but this evidence alone can't be used to discern whether the billions of required mutations all resulted from truly random events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was just illustrating the limitations of what can be expected from a blind process of natural selection with no specific goals.

No you weren’t. You were just asserting it, and moreover asserting it on the basis of your misunderstanding both of evolution and of reasoning.

I accept the evidence which has been discovered for the gradual transition from single cells to life as we know it, but this evidence alone can't be used to discern whether the billions of required mutations all resulted from truly random events.

Essentially yes it can. but what you’re trying here is another shifting of the burden of proof: “OK, we have vast evidence and a robust theoretical model for evolution, but that doesn’t guarantee that some magic might not have sneaked in along the way”.

Well, no I doesn’t. Nor does the evidence for rainbows guarantee that there aren’t leprechauns involved either. The point though is that both explanatory models work perfectly well with no need for gods or for leprechauns, so if you want to insist that either are present then you need some reasoning or evidence to support your claim. Just now though all you have is assertions and a failure to grasp how evolution (and reason) actually work.       

If you want me to explain it to you I will, but in exchange I ask that you don’t just run away again when I do.

Deal?

[Stranger]

I was just illustrating the limitations of what can be expected from a blind process of natural selection with no specific goals.

An assertion isn't an illustration. Jeez, logic and science are both totally beyond you when it comes to subjects that impact your faith, aren't they?

I accept the evidence which has been discovered for the gradual transition from single cells to life as we know it, but this evidence alone can't be used to discern whether the billions of required mutations all resulted from truly random events.

Quite apart from anything else (notably shifting the burden of proof fallacy), you're still ignoring the actual evidence I cited in #43134.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually I have answered that, several times. The whole space-time manifold does not appear to be contingent on anything (at least not obviously). And you still have not shown how what you're describing as 'necessary' is even a logically self-consistent concept.

False. You haven't given one single, solitary reason why there must be something necessary (at least in your latest usage of the word), nor, as I said before, made the slightest coherent attempt to provide sufficient reason for it and so distinguish it from a brute fact.

You seem to be basically using a circular argument. Stuff exists, and, so goes your claim, there must be something that's 'necessary', and then just asserted that it answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't. You'd also have to show that there was some reason why it had to exist, and that it not existing, it being different in some way, or even something entirely different, was impossible. You've basically made its existence contingent on all the other stuff existing.

You've actually got a dodgy argument for a brute fact that you're simply asserting is an argument for a 'necessary entity'.

Bullshit. You haven't made the slightest attempt to properly define this supposed 'necessary entity', show how it is possible, or how we can deduce what it might be like. The idea that it might be "self-directing" seems to be nothing but wishful thinking and actually contradicts some of the other baseless claims you've made about it.

In the matter of how there is 'something' rather than nothing there is a reason why that should be. If it did not exist there would be nothing, since there is not nothing, it necessarily exists. We can, because of contingency, then state that 'something' i.e everything is divided into that which is necessary and that which is contingent, and contingent on the necessary where the necessary must exist.

If you are putting space time manifold as the necessary entity you have to demonstrate it is independent for it's existence and operation from anything else (the contingent).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In the matter of how there is 'something' rather than nothing there is a reason why that should be.

Yes (to the "how" part), and that would be true of the universe and of gods equally.

If it did not exist there would be nothing, since there is not nothing, it necessarily exists.

No, “it” not existing does not tell you that nothing else exists. What you’re arguing for here in any case is just the “brute fact” that the universe exists. 

We can, because of contingency, then state that 'something' i.e everything is divided into that which is necessary and that which is contingent, and contingent on the necessary where the necessary must exist.

If by “necessary” you mean something like “self-explanatory” when the cause and effect model breaks down then ok…

If you are putting space time manifold as the necessary entity you have to demonstrate it is independent for it's existence and operation from anything else (the contingent).

Actually the current model is that space and time themselves are likely emergent properties of something else, but in any case still all you have is the point at which our knowledge of whether and how the universe came about runs out. We reach a “don’t know”. Just using that don’t know to insert a magic man as your explanation about which exactly the same question could be asked but are special pleaded away is an explanatory dead end.       

[Stranger]

In the matter of how there is 'something' rather than nothing there is a reason why that should be. If it did not exist there would be nothing, since there is not nothing, it necessarily exists.

That's entirely circular. Unless you can say why nothing existing was impossible, you haven't answered the question and you haven't got a 'necessary entity', just a brute fact.

We can, because of contingency, then state that 'something' i.e everything is divided into that which is necessary and that which is contingent, and contingent on the necessary where the necessary must exist.

You have never justified this strict dichotomy.

If you are putting space time manifold as the necessary entity you have to demonstrate it is independent for it's existence and operation from anything else (the contingent).

Trying to shift the burden of proof again. I put it forward because you claimed that everything about the universe was contingent. There is nothing that the space-time manifold is obviously contingent on, so, since it was your claim, it's up to you to say what it's contingent on and why.

[Outrider]

I am fully aware that people like Richard Dawkins have used their considerable intelligence to think up scenarios which may allow such transitions within the natural selection process.  However, the unguided forces of nature will not have the intelligence required to take up this highly specific path, making the likelihood of such specific scenarios occurring without guidance somewhat questionable.

Your presumption here is that these particular variations are the only ones that occurred. Uncounted billions upon billions of variations have occurred which provided no tangible benefit and have therefore either disappeared, or been haphazardly passed on - only those variations which proved beneficial were selected for and provided a broad enough base to be considered part of the framework. Given that eyes have emerged in the evolutionary record on multiple occasions via different pathways, we have at the very least and absolute minimum number of evolutionary pathways that exceeds the one option that your assumption works from.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the matter of how there is 'something' rather than nothing there is a reason why that should be. If it did not exist there would be nothing, since there is not nothing, it necessarily exists.

Nope, all that means is it exists, not that it necessary exists (i.e. could not have failed to exist).

The notion that oak trees exist doesn't mean they necessarily exist. Could oak trees have failed to exist - sure they could. Can we image earth without oak trees - sure we can and indeed there was a time when oak trees did not exist and there was no requirement or necessity for them to evolve. That they did evolve doesn't make their existent necessary. Frankly if it did anything and everything that actually exists would be a necessary entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, all that means is it exists, not that it necessary exists (i.e. could not have failed to exist).

The notion that oak trees exist doesn't mean they necessarily exist. Could oak trees have failed to exist - sure they could. Can we image earth without oak trees - sure we can and indeed there was a time when oak trees did not exist and there was no requirement or necessity for them to evolve. That they did evolve doesn't make their existent necessary. Frankly if it did anything and everything that actually exists would be a necessary entity.

It is the necessary entity for all that is. It is also necessary in that it does not come into being, it is self directing, and it is not conditioned by anything. If it always has been and will be there is no way it cannot be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is the necessary entity for all that is. It is also necessary in that it does not come into being, it is self directing, and it is not conditioned by anything. If it always has been and will be there is no way it cannot be.

You’d have saved yourself some time there by just typing “it’s magic innit?”.

[Stranger]

It is the necessary entity for all that is.

And indistinguishable from a brute fact, as far as everything you've said about it goes. You've also failed to argue that there is only one such brute fact.

It is also necessary in that it does not come into being, it is self directing, and it is not conditioned by anything. If it always has been and will be there is no way it cannot be.

A series of baseless assertions, stuck in a pre-20th century view of time. Just saying that it "always has been and will be" (apart from being stuck in the aforementioned view) doesn't tell us why it would be impossible for it not to exist. It would still just be a brute fact.

What is the sufficient reason for its existence?

[ProfessorDavey]

It is the necessary entity for all that is. It is also necessary in that it does not come into being, it is self directing, and it is not conditioned by anything. If it always has been and will be there is no way it cannot be.

But you've used an argument that if something does exist then it necessarily exists - that is just nonsense. And you also cannot simply conclude that because the universe (for example) exists then it couldn't not exist. Why could there not be nothing - that there is something has no bearing on whether there could be nothing.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is the necessary entity for all that is.

But you haven't made any cogent argument that there must be a necessary entity.

It is also necessary in that it does not come into being ... If it always has been and will be there is no way it cannot be.

Back into your old problem with time. For something to 'come into being' implies it wasn't there at one point in time and then it is there at another point in time. Likewise always has been presumes a temporal element. Both of those presumption is based on an assumption that time is uniform and unilinear. Take away that assumption and the notion of something to 'come into being' or to 'always has been' becomes completely meaningless.

But you have a very simplistic view of time, don't you Vlad.

[Alan Burns]

Your presumption here is that these particular variations are the only ones that occurred.

I make no such presumption.  It is the onus of those who believe in the capabilities of unguided evolutionary processes to develop complex organs to presume that the required mutations needed to achieve functionality were generated from random, unguided forces.

Uncounted billions upon billions of variations have occurred which provided no tangible benefit and have therefore either disappeared, or been haphazardly passed on - only those variations which proved beneficial were selected for and provided a broad enough base to be considered part of the framework.

I fully understand that there are far more neutral or harmful mutations than ones which provide tangible benefit, which makes the incremental evolution of complex organs by unguided forces yet more unlikely.

Given that eyes have emerged in the evolutionary record on multiple occasions via different pathways, we have at the very least and absolute minimum number of evolutionary pathways that exceeds the one option that your assumption works from.

I do not doubt that God had a guiding hand in all these different pathways.
And He must have done a brilliant job in synchronising the parallel incremental development of heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, arteries and veins - all of which are inter dependant on each other to achieve their functionality.

[Stranger]

I make no such presumption.  It is the onus of those who believe in the capabilities of unguided evolutionary processes to develop complex organs to presume that the required mutations needed to achieve functionality were generated from random, unguided forces.

The evidence is there, you're just ignoring it. For an example I refer you yet again to #43134, which you keep studiously ignoring.

I fully understand that there are far more neutral or harmful mutations than ones which provide tangible benefit, which makes the incremental evolution of complex organs by unguided forces yet more unlikely.

Which just goes to show that you have no understanding of natural selection. Each individual has multiple mutations (about 100 for each human, IIRC) in each generation, most neutral, but the sheer number that are present in each generation pretty much guarantees that a significant number of beneficial ones are generated and it is those that are successful and spread through populations.

I do not doubt that God had a guiding hand in all these different pathways.

Yes, we know you have blind, baseless faith that you can never justify.

And He must have done a brilliant job in synchronising the parallel incremental development of heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, arteries and veins - all of which are inter dependant on each other to achieve their functionality.

The long discredited argument of irreducible complexity.    Seriously Alan, why can't you even be bothered to do some basic homework before posting such silliness?

[Outrider]

I make no such presumption.

You do. In order to think that a particular sequence of mutations is unfathomably unlikely you have to be failing to account for the sheer number of combinations of mutations that happen for that one sequence to emerge - this is not happening in isolation, and that's where your assertion that this is so unlikely that it must be guided comes from. It comes from picturing this as a single impossibly narrow thread in a wide expanse, rather than seeing it as one particular strand in a cloud of hanging tendrils.

It is the onus of those who believe in the capabilities of unguided evolutionary processes to develop complex organs to presume that the required mutations needed to achieve functionality were generated from random, unguided forces.

No, it's the fact that those of us who recognise the capabilities of unguided evolutionary processes to develop complex organs do so by understanding the observed phenomena of apparently random mutation. Evolution is not a belief, it's an established scientific theory with a massive body of supporting evidence.

I fully understand that there are far more neutral or harmful mutations than ones which provide tangible benefit, which makes the incremental evolution of complex organs by unguided forces yet more unlikely.

Actually, that's not quite the right portrayal - the grossly harmful mutations weed themselves out of the gene pool quite quickly, as their recipients rarely survive and even more rarely reproduce. Of the rest, the overwhelming majority are neutral, they simply increase variety in the short term, and then at some later date one of them becomes relevant and is selected for. It's the range of immediately inconsequential variations that later prove beneficial in changing circumstances that make evolution viable.

I do not doubt that God had a guiding hand in all these different pathways.

Whether the proponent of an idea has doubts was always a poor indicator of its validity, even before the work of Dunning and Kruger.

And He must have done a brilliant job in synchronising the parallel incremental development of heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, arteries and veins - all of which are inter dependant on each other to achieve their functionality.

And yet so incompetent as to get the eyes of his favourite species backwards, and not evolve human birth canals to accommodate their children so as to require premature births... and... and... The list of suboptimal features of any number of creatures, including human beings, is so vast as to turn the idea of a designer from praise to an accusation.

O.

[torridon]

It is relatively easy to illustrate how a functioning organ can possibly achieve better functionality from individual mutations, thus enabling the fine tuning process. 

The difficulty is in imagining how the transition from no organ at all to functioning organ can be achieved by incremental mutations each of which has to give sufficient benefit to get passed on through natural selection.

I am fully aware that people like Richard Dawkins have used their considerable intelligence to think up scenarios which may allow such transitions within the natural selection process.  However, the unguided forces of nature will not have the intelligence required to take up this highly specific path, making the likelihood of such specific scenarios occurring without guidance somewhat questionable.

This is your incredulity talking again, are you an expert in evolutionary biology such that we should take your incredulity at the findings of science as some sort of substantive counter-argument ?  I don't think so, you are out of your depth.

Not only are you bloviating about things you don't understand, you fail to address the fact that this idea of a god secretively guiding evolution by burying his hand under seemingly natural processes defies the other claim that god cannot lie.  Not only is this secretive god inconsistent with a truthful god it is also inconsistent with a compassionate god as it implies a god preferring to let people and animals suffer and die through natural selection when he could have done otherwise.

To illustrate that, consider the spread of the variant EPAS1 gene through montane populations that allows for better oxygen transport and thereby better survival rates in a low oxygen environment.  In your 'guiding hand' scenario, god has secretly targeted a handful of individuals to cause the beneficial mutation on this gene, and this mutation has now spread widely through the population.  This mutation occurs in around 90% modern Tibetans now for instance, compared to a very low incidence among the population of Han Chinese from whom the Tibetans descend.  So god has allowed natural selection to occur causing the unnecessary suffering and deaths of untold numbers of Tibetans over the millennia from premature cardiovascular failure when he could have just as easily targeted all Tibetans to carry the beneficial variant. Why would he do this ? Is it secrecy that is his number one overriding priority ? He lets people suffer and die rather than allow any hint of supernatural intervention in the workings of nature.

[ekim]

Why would he do this ? Is it secrecy that is his number one overriding priority ?

God knows!

[Alan Burns]

The long discredited argument of irreducible complexity.    Seriously Alan, why can't you even be bothered to do some basic homework before posting such silliness?

The argument for irreducible complexity still stands as a valid argument.
I am fully aware of the highly convoluted attempts to discredit it by those in the scientific community who are determined to cling on to their belief in unguided evolution.  The evidence for irreducible complexity can be found in every living creature - even in the first primitive cells.