AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[ekim]

Of course they can't see him - immortal invisible - isn't that what the hymn says?

I think Walter was using 'vision' as an analogy for 'understanding' or 'knowing'.  The spiritual vision for many is through the heart rather than the eyes, probably why most close their eyes when they pray.

[Walter]

Alan could say the same thing though .... You could liken it to colour blindness . them that can't see God can't see God no matter how many times I tell em.

a major problem here,
red exists , god does not.

[Nearly Sane]

a major problem here,
red exists , god does not.

Show  both of those positive claims are true.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No doubt you do “see” that, but it completely destroys your argument. On the one hand you attempt you use your incredulity about the unlikelihood of evolution achieving the diversity of observable life in order to imply “God”, while at the same time on the other hand you posit a god to have intended there to be a “wonderful abundance of life” in the first place.

That’s called circular reasoning – each premise depends on the other for its validity – and it’s a basic logical fallacy. 

You only see it as a fallacy because you try to remove God from the equation

   
It doesn’t require their extinction at all. Sometimes species become extinct for a variety of reasons, one of which can be that a daughter species is better adapted to compete for limited resources. There are though countless examples of species that have evolved from predecessor species without the parent species becoming extinct at all.
 
No, there are lots of reasons for avoiding extinction just as there have been lots of advantageous adaptations in species that have nonetheless become extinct.

Your ignorance of basic logic and of the subject you presume to critique is doing you no favours here.

The logic is quite clear.
For evolution by natural selection to work, every incremental mutation involved in the development of each element of our body has to be passed on through natural selection of beneficial mutations, implying that every incremental mutation has to give sufficient benefit on its own to be passed on by avoiding extinction.   So members of the same species without one of the incremental mutations in question would need to become extinct in order for this incremental mutation to be incorporated in the future generations.  That is how natural selection works.  Or I should say, that is how natural selection is meant to work.

[Gordon]

You only see it as a fallacy because you try to remove God from the equation.

God isn't 'in' to start with: the TofE doesn't involve divine agency which is, of course, why some theists don't like it.
 

[Sebastian Toe]

When people started to have the ability to believe in Him.

When was that?

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not presume to know what God has in store for future generations.

So it is possible that he is still doing it or if not now, then may do so at some time(s) in the future?

[Sebastian Toe]

By the same power that humans have to use their gift of free will to guide natural forces, thus interacting with the otherwise deterministic nature of our universe.

'free will' as you put it, is the non physical element behind actions isn't it?
I'm asking, what do you think that God did physically to 'guide' evolution?

[Maeght]

The key word is "survival".  For beneficial mutations to be passed on, each one needs to increase the chance of survival against those creatures without the mutation.

Yes - and?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You only see it as a fallacy because you try to remove God from the equation

Did you mean to say that?

A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy.  “A lion is a cat, therefore all cats are lions” is a fallacy whether or not you throw “God” into the mix, and so is circular reasoning.

The logic is quite clear.

Given your form here somehow I doubt it will be, but let’s see…

For evolution by natural selection to work, every incremental mutation involved in the development of each element of our body has to be passed on through natural selection of beneficial mutations,…

Or neutral ones or ones that reduce functionality but not sufficiently to cause extinction provided the mutations are genetically dominant rather than recessive.

…the  implying that every incremental mutation has to give sufficient benefit on its own to be passed on by avoiding extinction.

No it doesn’t. You might for example think that weaker eyesight is harmful, but if the species lives in a lightless cave it would make no difference to its survival and continued presence down the subsequent generations if it happened to be dominant.

Mutations are only “beneficial” or “harmful” in relation to the environment the organism occupies. 

So members of the same species without one of the incremental mutations in question would need to become extinct in order for this incremental mutation to be incorporated in the future generations.  That is how natural selection works.  Or I should say, that is how natural selection is meant to work.

No it wouldn’t and no it isn’t. And it wouldn’t and it isn’t because, eventually, speciation occurs – generally when the daughter organism can no longer breed with the parent organism.

Why is this difficult for you (and where is Richard Forrest when you need him)?

[torridon]

Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.

Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs)  in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint.  The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on.  Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation?  It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards.  This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.

Natural selection can explain why frogs with green skin survive better in the jungle than frogs with white skin, but it does not explain how the skin came into being, or the frog itself for that matter.

This show you simply misunderstand the process of evolution by natural selection.  Blue has probably already pulled you up on this, but it is absolutely incorrect to think that beneficial mutations require the extinction of other individuals of the same species to be passed on.  Extinction happens to species, death happens to individuals, and change through natural selection works across populations over time. You have a beneficial mutation that allows you to tolerate lactose in adulthood, but it does not require the death of everybody else for that to be conserved. The human genome also carries some number of deleterious mutations that cause ill health such as cystic fibrosis, but it doesn't necessarily lead to the extinction of the species.

And even if it were true that natural selection only provides a fine tuning, do you suppose there is some glass ceiling limiting the amount of change that selection pressures can induce in a population ?  What you call 'fine tuning' is really just change across populations in response to environmental change and the longer the change goes on, the longer species will keep on evolving, it is a process and it is not going to suddenly and arbitrarily stop.

[wigginhall]

It's pointless.  When you get someone ignorant about biology, mathematics and statistics, such as AB, they can make stuff up all day long, along the lines of Intelligent Design, and any criticisms will just bounce off them.   I suppose the crucial thing is to stop them having influence in education, although that is a more burning concern in the US, especially with the new right-wing government.   

[Walter]

Show  both of those positive claims are true.

I will not,  and you know why.

[Nearly Sane]

I will not,  and you know why.

yep, you can't

[Walter]

yep, you can't

show that that statement is true

[Gordon]

It's pointless.  When you get someone ignorant about biology, mathematics and statistics, such as AB, they can make stuff up all day long, along the lines of Intelligent Design, and any criticisms will just bounce off them.   I suppose the crucial thing is to stop them having influence in education, although that is a more burning concern in the US, especially with the new right-wing government.

I think when it comes to AB, and like-minded souls, their a priorii position is 'God' and their a posteriori is also 'God' and this requires them to redefine on their terms, or just ignore, anything that seems to interfere with their preferred start-point and conclusion even when they plainly misunderstand what they are pontificating on.

That otherwise intelligent people will go to such lengths to ring-fence the theistic aspects of their thinking by trying, and failing, to redefine or dispense with knowledge (such as involving biology) to suit their personal preferences is utterly perplexing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

show that that statement is true

It's axiomatically true inasmuch as "God does not exist" is unknowable. The most you can say is that there are no cogent reasons to think that God does exist. Some (like Hope) will seize on that as a positive by attempting the negative proof fallacy, but it's no such thing as it applies just as much to any other unfalsifiable conjecture.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God isn't 'in' to start with: the TofE doesn't involve divine agency which is, of course, why some theists don't like it.

I like methodological naturalism. I like Brobat shit house cleaner. I hate it when antitheists abuse either particularly when they mistake methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism.

[Walter]

Walter,

It's axiomatically true inasmuch as "God does not exist" is unknowable. The most you can say is that there are no cogent reasons to think that God does exist. Some (like Hope) will seize on that as a positive by attempting the negative proof fallacy, but it's no such thing as it applies just as much to any other unfalsifiable conjecture.

He could try then I would remind him of the OP.
T

[jeremyp]

Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.

Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs)  in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint.  The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on.  Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation?  It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards.  This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.

No. This is fundamentally wrong. First of all, mutations don't need to be beneficial to be passed on. As long as they aren't bad enough to prevent reproduction they can survive in the gene pool.

Secondly, a beneficial mutation doesn't have to force organisms without the mutation to go extinct. All it needs to do is confer some advantage so that organisms that have it are more likely to reproduce viable offspring than those without. The other organisms don't have to go extinct.

[Gordon]

I like methodological naturalism. I like Brobat shit house cleaner. I hate it when antitheists abuse either particularly when they mistake methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism.

Seems to me, Vlad, that since evolutionary biologists don't factor 'God' into their work, pointing out that the TofE doesn't include divine intervention as a factor is a reasonable observation - but then you do tend to overreact at times.

I've also noticed, by the way, that all the cook-books I've read make no mention of divine intervention in recipes either, so presumably that too is philosophical naturalism (of the culinary variety), which no doubt also offends your sensibilities.

[Walter]

I like methodological naturalism. I like Brobat shit house cleaner. I hate it when antitheists abuse either particularly when they mistake methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism.

the words 'methodological' and 'philosophical'  are not required in this sentence.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Walter,

It's axiomatically true inasmuch as "God does not exist" is unknowable.

Which is a logical contradiction bluehillside, therefore your statement is incorrect.

The most you can say is that there are no cogent reasons to think that God does exist.

Incorrect

Some (like Hope) will seize on that as a positive by attempting the negative proof fallacy, but it's no such thing as it applies just as much to any other unfalsifiable conjecture.

No, they won't because as usual
1. You make it an either-or when no-one here is doing this.
2. There is at least one other option (I say, at least because there may be other options I've overlooked)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the words 'methodological' and 'philosophical'  are not required in this sentence.

There is a difference Vassler and you are glossing over it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems to me, Vlad, that since evolutionary biologists don't factor 'God' into their work, pointing out that the TofE doesn't include divine intervention as a factor is a reasonable observation - but then you do tend to overreact at times.

I've also noticed, by the way, that all the cook-books I've read make no mention of divine intervention in recipes either, so presumably that too is philosophical naturalism (of the culinary variety), which no doubt also offends your sensibilities.

No it's methodological naturalism Gordon and as I have said I like that.