Atheism creates a moral vacuum which only a religion can fill.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Sorry if my stupidity had enraged you. That’s why I had in my answer specifically mentioned that I was answering based on my understanding of your questions. I understood this question in terms of existence of complex objects – and simplistically mentioned the dimensions in which we all exist. I apologize.
However, I would like to ask you. Do all measurable quantities have a dimension? In what dimension do you measure angles?
I understand where you are coming from though. Your questions will help in highlighting the difficulty in dealing with the concept of complexity. Even its definition is complicated, I agree.
But complexity is also a concept we deal with regularly in our everyday life and even make crucial decisions in life based on them. Our intuitive understanding, like in many other things in the real world, of complexity is also reliable. When we go deeper into the subject, maybe we can discuss more.
Angles are measured in degrees.
hi Ex christian...
Degrees are the unit of measurement of angles. Like centimeters is the unit of measuring distance.
There are many dimensionless quantities, angles are a good example. Furthermore human intuition is notoriously bad in areas like this. I literally make a living off people's bad intuitions (I work for a casino). And I'm still waiting for the dimensions of complexity. Also a sample calculation of a simple system would be useful. Otherwise it is not clear what you mean when you refer to this quantity. For example, I thought you were going to answer yes to question number 5.
Imagine if I insisted that the "floobie index" of the Earth was way too low for god to exist. Yet when questioned I couldn't explain how to calculate the quantity or even what dimensions it has. It wouldn't be the beginning of a conversation, it would be the end.
Good arguments Nyalthotep (it's so hard to spell your name)
Before we get into all the complicated jargon, let's lay things bare. The issue of complexity (its dimensions, measurements etc) become only a problem if we don't agree on what is complexity, and in the context of this discussion, complexity in nature.
However, atheist and theists agree there is complexity in nature. It's just that we provide two different explanations for it. It's because we agree there is complexity that we feel there is a need to explain it. Why would we pour so much sweat on finding the theory of evolution and stuff like that.
My point is simple: if you and i agree there is complexity in nature, then let's get to explaining how it occurred. I think, this is what Cyber and I are doing at the moment.
On the other hand, if you are saying that complexity doesn't exist in nature, then I think we will have to get into finer details of what is complexity, and how is it measured and such stuff.
Let me know if you agree with me. Once we decide on this, then may be we can explore human intuitions and what I mean by that etc.
BTW, I am really enjoying this discussion, as you have opened new venues for thought.
You want us to believe that this or that is too complex to exist without god, but can't/won't tell us the dimensions of this complexity. You have set this up to be un-falsifiable.
YOU SAID: “You want us to believe that this or that is too complex to exist without god, but can't/won't tell us the dimensions of this complexity. You have set this up to be un-falsifiable.”
No. I am not making any assertion of ‘God is’ or ‘God is not.’
I am only stating this much. Do you accept there is complexity in nature? By whatever measuring standard you use, whatever the magnitude or measuring unit. If you say there is complexity in nature, then we both are in agreement on that point. There is no further reason for us to explore the aspects of complexity.
Where do I go from there? Once I have established that there is complexity in nature, the next question is, does this complexity demand an explanation? I am sure you agree on that as well… that’s the reason theists and atheists have locked horns over the theory of evolution for so long. If your premise is that complexity needs no explanation, then why even bother to discuss all this.
Next, if you agree there is complexity and that it demands an explanation, then we get into the actual debate of ‘How the complexity we see in nature came about.” That’s when we get into the details of evolution. It is this discussion I am having with Cyber and Kataclismic.
I am thinking of proving god on the premise of “How the complexity (which you and I agree exists in nature) came about. I am not imposing on you my belief, I am only restating what you already accept, in other words, complexity in nature.
Hope my logic is clear.
And i forgot.
The reason I answer question 5 as "NO." is because I don't think complexity can emerge spontaneously. Yes, you might think the big bang occured spontaneously, but I think there is an originator to it that made it happen (after all that's what we differ on)
A biologist many years ago said something to the effect of where life cannot find a foothold there exists none but where it can it abounds in unimaginable diversification. The simple reasoning behind this is that you and I exist because of every form of life that exists around us. Everything from the construction of your DNA to the bacteria in your stomach are dependent upon previous forms of life and are relative and necessary to our existence. Professor Brian Cox was saying the other day that the Orangutan's DNA is roughly 98% or our own and that a chicken accounts for 60% of our DNA and it can be traced all the way back to the single-celled bacteria that now help us to break down foods for our own metabolisms. The eye is something that exists in 96% of all living things, even those that hardly have a need for them, regardless of form the function remains the same.The ancient documents say nothing about why god would need to create such a back-story when science discovers that all living things rely on and compliment each other for the sole purpose of remaining alive because the humans that wrote those documents had no idea that deoxyribonucleic acid even exists.
As far as fossil records - it takes a specific combination of environmental variables to even create the fossils so there is no surprise whatsoever that there are gaps in the records. The fact we have the knowledge we have is only because of the perseverance of many, many scientists. In the early days those same scientists did their work under the risk of being accused of heresy and put to death. Obviously religion has nothing to do with knowledge.
But nevermind, I have a question for you Valiya. Bob is a devout religious man, we'll call him Islamic for your benefit, and lives every day with express thanks to his creator and respect for his rules. One day Bob steps off the curb just in time for a drunk driver to come screaming around the corner and collect him, tossing him to the ground and causing a concussion as well as damage to his cerebral cortex. Bob is the same person but he has a few issues now, such as speaking to people in his native language, which no one around him speaks, and occasionally after his wife goes to bed he'll be collected by the police for roaming the streets stark naked. To make a long story short Bob's mental capacity declines and eventually it causes him to no longer respect his creator or the laws set out for him at all. Sorry for the vague example but my question has to do with Bob's treatment in respect to his moral character. If god knows that Bob was a good person and his actions during his last remaining years were a direct result of his injuries then Bob would have to be accepted in the circle of heaven right? And how can Bob be rejected for injuries that are in no way his fault? Hence, if I am of a good moral character but decline to accept hearsay for god's existence (that isn't my fault, that's just my personality at work) why would I be treated any differently than Bob? If the test is whether I can accept hearsay as scripture rather than apply logic and reasoning to my existence then I'll fail that test every-time without question.
Sorry, there was one more topic I wanted to comment on. Jumping spiders have specifically keyed penis's to mates of the same species thereby eliminating inter-species breeding. The DNA that builds a penis or vagina is the same DNA strain, just built differently. The idea that they could evolve independent of one-another is impossible, and a bit silly.
Thanks for the post. Here are my replies.
You said: “A biologist many years ago said… had no idea that deoxyribonucleic acid even exists.”
Look Kataclysmic… All that you mentioned are perceivable realities/facts. I agree. Now, we have got these facts in front of us. The issue is… what do you make of all this? Theists say it points to the unity of the creator… in other words the designer is one for all of these. Atheists say it points to evolution.
Let me give you an example to make my point clearer. We all know that all the things fall to the ground. This is something man has perceived ever since he had the faculty to perceive. But Newton came along and gave an interpretation for this phenomenon. He called it gravity, and said that it’s an invisible force that exists between all object, with larger objects applying more force.
Many years later, Einstein came along and said gravity has nothing to do with force. It’s just a curvature of time-space. Another interpretation. But the phenomenon has remained the same.
IN our case, the phenomenon is interdependence and similarity between species. Your interpretation is evolution. My interpretation is unity in creation. Let’s put your hypothesis to test.
Now before I go on… let me give you a very important point to think about. If you want to prove evolution, do you know what you have to show me? Not similarities between species. Not that through mutation some organisms get an advantage in survival.
What you have to show me is that a mutation causes increase in genetic information. This is an extremely important. So far, there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide.
Now why do I say that it is such an important evidence? According evolution, it is a one-celled primitive organism that has evolved into what we call man. (For the time being I will not ask you to explain how that single celled organism came). This clearly shows that there has been a tremendous amount of increase in genetic information through evolution. We are a zillion times more complex than a single celled organism.
I don’t know if you had read all my posts to Cyber. I had worked out some math to show the probability of positive mutation (by positive mutation I mean a mutation that actually adds information). If it had happened so frequently in the past for us to be so evolved, why is it that today we don’t find a single example of a mutation that causes increase in genetic information.
Let me explain more: if you show me that a particular strain of bacteria increases its chances of survival by developing resistance to a drug through mutation, I would NOT consider it a proof for evolution. Because bacteria actually gains this resistance by shedding the specificity in their protein synthesis gene, which is what the drug attacks, and hence the resistance. In this case, it is actually losing information, which gives the bacteria an advantage over the drug, but leads to the synthesis of low quality protein. In fact, all examples of mutation that gives survival advantage are either loss of information or re-emergence of already stored information. There is no example of new information evolving through mutation.
YOU SAID: “As far as fossil records - it takes a specific combination of environmental variables to even create the fossils so there is no surprise whatsoever that there are gaps in the records.”
As of today, we have more than a million fossils. Now think of what evolutionists say – evolution is a very gradual process. Think of a deer turning into a giraffe through evolution. The deer population would have had to exist for hundreds of thousands of years as deers for them to undergo the first step in evolution. And once this happens, the new species, let’s call it X, they would have had to rise up to a big population and lived for hundreds of thousands of years to then evolve into the next species. Let’s call it Y. And similarly for Y to become Z and so on until the giraffes emerged. Therefore, each of these intermediate links (X,Y,Z) would have had equal chance of fossilization, because they had lived long enough too. Then why is it that they are missing?
IN fact, as I had mentioned it earlier, evolutionary scientists see the missing link as a big problem. If it were as easy as you said, why bother. They come up with strange theories like PET to cover up this gap, which speaks more of their imaginative powers than anything substantial.
You said: “Obviously religion has nothing to do with knowledge.”
The purpose of religion (at least Islam) is to provide guidance to man on how to live his life. This it provides. However, there is one thing that Quran asserts very rigorously, that the natural world is the greatest evidence of the creator. And in my humble opinion the only reason that evolution theory, despite its many gaping holes, is still being bandied as a scientific fact, is because if not this, then there’s not even an alternate explanation (even by the farthest stretch of imagination) for the spontaneous emergence of life on earth, without an intelligent cause.
Now coming to your very interesting question about Bob:
In Islam, a person is not accountable for what he does when he is not in control of his senses. It’s very simple. Bob would only be answerable for what he did until he lost his mind.
YOU SAID: “Hence, if I am of a good moral character but decline to accept hearsay for god's existence (that isn't my fault, that's just my personality at work) why would I be treated any differently than Bob? If the test is whether I can accept hearsay as scripture rather than apply logic and reasoning to my existence then I'll fail that test every-time without question.
There are two things to note here. Firstly, you said “if I am of a good moral character, but I decline to accept…”
The reason that Islam wants you to believe in it is because it firmly believes that one can never be morally 100% correct without following Islam. Let me explain. You maybe a good person according to what you perceive as good. You may not lie, cheat, kill etc. But what about sex outside marriage? That might be alright to you, in your context. But Islam says that it’s immoral. What about taking bank loans for interest? You would say that’s fine because you are not cheating anyone there. But Islam says that’s immoral.
Now, you might want to question the logic behind those moral precepts. I can give you many reasons why these things are bad for the society, while at an individual level they may not pose much of a problem. For example, I can show you that an interest-based economy generates poverty. But that’s a long-winded topic, so I will not venture into that now. So when you look at things at a macro scale what may appear innocent could have devastating consequences. Similarly, I can show you why sex without responsibility (without marriage) can at a macro level have devastating consequences.
However, my point is only this much. Even if you want to live a morally pure life, without divine guidance, it would be impossible.
Then you said: “If the test is whether I can accept hearsay as scripture rather than apply logic and reasoning to my existence then I'll fail that test every-time without question.”
No. Islam doesn’t say you should accept anything by hearsay. If you read the Quran with an open mind, you will see that it’s actually speaking to your reasoning mind.
Quran’s case is very simple. Look at the world around you. The design in it will be too obvious. And therefore there is a designer. But now if you are confused by evolution (despite the huge illogicality in it) fine, I will give you few more things to ponder over.
I earnestly request you to look at some of the scientific phenomena that are mentioned in the quran. We will have a separate discussion on it. I will state them with proof. Try to give me a rational explanation as to how an illiterate arab desert dweller of the 7th century (Mohammed, PBUH) could have come up with these facts.
I am speaking to your scientific mind. If you realize that these are indeed scientifically accurate statements not known to people of those times, then I don’t think you will have the excuse that your reasoning mind hasn’t found anything in religion.
I will answer your jumping spider question in a separate post, as this is getting too long.
Valiya-“So far, there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide.”
The insertion of nucleotides, and duplication of strings of nucleotides are common mutations. Again, dumb on purpose.
What's actually happening during insertion and duplication? To put it simply: Insertion happens when a nucleotide base pair from one DNA sequence enters another DNA sequence. Let's call the first DNA sequence A, and the second one B. As far as B is concerned, yes, there has been an addition of information. But it's not a newly generated information. It is what was already there in A.
Duplication, as the name itself indicates, is just a copying of existing necleotide base pair... no new information is generated.
To translate it into real world. Say there is a unicellelar organism with flagella. This process of insertion and duplication can lead the organism to having two extra pairs of flagella, or in other words different combinations or extensions of the same traits. No, new trait will be produced.
But we know that massive amounts of new (hitherto non-existent) traits must have been produced on a regular basis (at a frequency of one every 3 years if my calculation on top is anything to go by). But today, we find that's its totally absent in our real world.
Information is measured in bits, when you add information (even useless repetitive information) the number of bits required to store that information increases. Adding a base pair actually adds 2 bits of information. Also the number of states of the system increases. Also when you insert a single base pair, it causes a 2bit-wise shift of the already stored information, causing massive changes in the organism as the previously stored information is now interpreted totally differently.
What i mean by information is a new trait. If a horse and an antelope mate, and we get a horse with horns, I wouldn't consider that addition of information. It's just recombination of existing information. Let's say, there are two unicellular organisms that DON"T have flagella. No amount of insertion or duplication of nucleotide base pairs, will cause a flagella to emerge. I am using the example of flagella, because that's the most primitive, irreducible trait that i can think of. This is what i mean, when i say no mutation can add information.
Can you show me an example of this from the real world. Where a hitherto unknown trait has emerged due to mutation.
Yes, we know you want to use technical words in a dishonest manner; hoping your audience will assume you mean what everyone else means when they use them, while secretly reserving a special, undisclosed definition you can fall back to when you have been called to task.
Also adding a base pair can cause massive changes, because the frame-shift alters the productions of amino acid more or less randomly.
For example given the sequence: GGGTTTCCC it interpreted as the following:
GGG - Glycine, TTT - Phenylalanine, CCC - Proline
However now we insert an extra T at the start: TGGGTTTCCC, it is now interpreted as the following:
TGG - Tryptophan, GTT - Valine, TCC - Serine
And this is a very short sequence, the longer the sequence the bigger the change!
Nyarlathotep... why all these unnecessary trading of barbs. Let's differ with each other graciously. I mean no disrespect or offence to anyone. I know we are people with very strong opinions and it's very difficult to reconcile these issues. But we are in an intellectual discussion, so let's keep it at that. The feelings of dishonesty could be mutual, so why voice it out and degrade the dignity of this discussion.
If the readers feel that what you say makes sense, they will know. And same in my case.
Now, you have given a lot of technicalities, which honestly doesn't mean much unless you can show me how it translates into a new trait in the real world.
After all evolutionists often throw up examples of bacteria and virus that gain resistance to drugs as example of mutations that give selective advantage. Show me an example, where an organism gains a new trait. Simple. If you can't, then let's move on to the next topic.
We can't discuss complexity rationally because you have your own private version of the world you can't define. We can't discuss information rationally because you have your own private version of the word you can't define. I suspect we can't discuss traits rationally because you will most assuredly have your own private version, which you can't define.
Think about the first sentence I quoted from you:
Valiya-“So far, there is no known example in the living world of any mutation that causes an increase in information by even a single nucleotide.”
There are only 4 different ways to add a base pair, all you can do is add A, T, C, or G which you claim is not new information! So with your special version of the word information you have constructed a tautology! But yet you claim you want to have an intelligent conversion! Imagine if someone told you that adding to 1 bit to a computer's program doesn't produce any new information because there are only 2 ways to add it (0 or 1); therefore it is impossible to add new functions in any program.
man, i had a similar issue and dishonesty is exactly the word I used to describe her attitude towards any argument.
We couldn't even agree on what I have said lol
She constantly wants to find a flaw in anything even where there ain't any by making her own personal version of anything and then state it as a fact.
There is no way you can reason with such people.
nice to hear from you again. BTW i am a guy. Not a woman.
“We can't discuss complexity rationally because you have your own private version of the world you can't define. We can't discuss information rationally because you have your own private version of the word you can't define. I suspect we can't discuss traits rationally because you will most assuredly have your own private version, which you can't define.”
I explained to you my position on complexity. I still believe you accept there is complexity in nature. I also believe that you accept complexity needs an explanation (as to how it came about). If we agree on all this, then it’s just a matter of getting to our explanations. If you don’t, then why are you even attempting to answer my points on evolution. The reason we are doing this on evolution is because evolution is your explanation for complexity in nature. I think, as far as complexity is concerned, we have come to an agreement, and therefore there is really no need to define it further. It’s only when we disagree on what is complexity, there is need for further exploration on that subject. We agree there is complexity in nature.
YOU SAID: “There are only 4 different ways to add a base pair, all you can do is add A, T, C, or G which you claim is not new information! So with your special version of the word information you have constructed a tautology! But yet you claim you want to have an intelligent conversion! Imagine if someone told you that adding to 1 bit to a computer's program doesn't produce any new information because there are only 2 ways to add it (0 or 1); therefore it is impossible to add new functions in any program.”
Okay. If I don’t agree that adding of bits in computer will not increase functionality, all that you have to do is show me an example of a computer which took on new functions by adding bits. End of debate.
That’s all I am asking you to show me in nature. Instead you are getting into convoluted explanations of technicalities in DNA and so on. I am expecting you would show me something like “Look here is an ameba that didn’t have flagella… and lo after the mutation, there it has a brand new pair of flagella.” Why is it so difficult, if as evolution claims, it has happened so many times in the past, creating new traits upon new traits.
If you say you cannot show an example from nature as I am asking… just spell that out. And we will move on. Yes, or No.
Valiya - If you say you cannot show an example from nature as I am asking… just spell that out. And we will move on. Yes,
Yes. A strain of E. coli was witnessed (and it was repeated several times) to develop the ability to process citric acid as food (a 'trait' which no other E. coli has). It occurred some generations after a mutation that duplicated about 3000 base pairs.
And I can already hear you crying that adding about 6000 bits of information isn't adding information because it just added T's, A's, G's and C's and those already existed elsewhere! And an organism developing the trait of being able to process citric acid where it couldn't before, isn't a new trait because other creature can do it. The usual tautologies of the creotard.
That’s all that I needed. You could have spelt it out before. Why all the other unwanted talk. And no, I am definitely NOT going to dismiss this example with the kind of argument you second guessed I would put forth. Now, if only you can provide me as to where you got this information from, may be I can check it out and study it myself, so I can either refute it or accept it. If this is indeed a valid proof, I will have to thank you immensely, because as far as I am concerned I am here to learn and grow. If you can prove that my idea of God is wrong, I will become an atheist too.
Valiya - "If this is indeed a valid proof"
Of course it isn't a proof, you can't prove evolution is true, just like no scientific theory can be proven true
Valiya - "If you can prove that my idea of God is wrong, I will become an atheist too."
Again, god's existence or your idea of god can not be proven wrong (for the same reasons as scientific theories). Furthermore I would add that evolution and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. There are probably thousands of biologists that believe in god, yet endorse evolution.
There are also a brand of religious apologists who spread lies about evolution, thinking it is in conflict with their religion. These lies are often repeated by people who don't know any better. Some of the more common ones are:
No transitional fossils.
Large animals are too complex to have evolved.
Evolution is random.
Evolution adds no information.
Evolution violates the 2nd law.
Radiometric dating does not work.
Anyone in the 21st century with access to the internet who makes one of these statements is either a liar, or repeating lies they were told which they never investigated.
I would also like to add that becoming an atheist because you finally accepted the theory of evolution is probably a terrible reason to become an atheist.
Valiya - "if only you can provide me as to where you got this information from"
Make sure you read up to the last sentence, where the discovery gives a clue to how new traits are produced.
YOU SAID: “Of course it isn't a proof, you can't prove evolution is true, just like no scientific theory can be proven true”
If this is not a proof, then why do you state it here? But at least you have shown the graciousness of accepting that the evolution theory cannot be proven true, because it’s still a theory. I think, the discussion essentially ends here. Because why should I waste my energy on disproving something which, as you have conceded, cannot be proven.
YOU SAID: “Again, god's existence or your idea of god cannot be proven wrong (for the same reasons as scientific theories). Furthermore I would add that evolution and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. There are probably thousands of biologists that believe in god, yet endorse evolution.”
In that case, logically speaking, you should only be an agnost. If both God and Evolution to you are theories that cannot be proven or disproven, then why do you favor one over the other?
If this is what you have to say, then I am seriously beginning to wonder why it is that you drew me into an argument in the first place. Why did you have to raise all those questions on complexity and so on, when you always knew that your position can never be proven?
Evolution and God (in my concept) would not be mutually exclusive only if evolution’s God of Randomness gets eliminated. Yes, may be one species evolved from another, but it’s not possible without the agency of an intelligent will (according to my belief). Therefore, to that extent, I think they are mutually exclusive.
YOU SAY: “Some of the more common ones are:
“No transitional fossils.”
The lack of intermediate fossils is actually not a contention between theists and atheists – it is a subject of serious differences of opinion between evolutionists themselves. Why did Stephen J Gould propose this PET theory, and why did some evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, critique it? This is indeed an unsettling topic for evolutionists. Why should theists lie about it, when the conflict within evolution is proof of that.
“Large animals are too complex to have evolved.”
Leave alone large animals – even the smallest unicellular organism is too complex to evolve through a series of accidents. The complexity in a cell can be equated to a large factory.
“Evolution is random.”
Why should somebody lie about it? It’s there for everyone to see. According to the theory, the principle driving force behind evolution is mutation and natural selection. Mutation is nothing but an accident in DNA copying, which is random. Nature’s selection capacity is highly questionable, because to explain many complex traits, we would have to say that nature somehow preserved them in their primitive stages of development with an eye on future.
“Evolution adds no information.”
This is what we are debating right now. And you have provided an example. From the readings that I did so far, the Ecoli example seems very similar to the experiment done on bacteria that evolved an enzyme non-natural sugar. If that’s the case, it would be a case of loss of information, and not addition of new information. I will explain in greater detail after I read up your link. (But what purpose does it serve, as you have already conceded that it’s impossible to prove evolution).
“Evolution violates the 2nd law.”
If you are referring to thermodynamics, then why of course. Randomness only leads to entropy. And evolution states it leads to complexity.
“Radiometric dating does not work.”
Who says that? If you can shed more light on that, it would be helpful to me.
YOU SAID: “I would also like to add that becoming an atheist because you finally accepted the theory of evolution is probably a terrible reason to become an atheist.”
When I said that, I didn’t know your position was that evolution can never be proved. Going by your vociferous arguments, I thought you are here to prove it or die. I was only encouraging you to try harder.
Anyways thanks for the link. I will read it. And probably I will reply to it to show you what you have already conceded “It’s impossible to prove evolution.” Why should I even try???
After this post, i will post all my answers (in case there is any point in continuing this debate) as a new comment, as this band is getting too narrow.
This is the answer for you point on evolution of sexes.
Okay… let’s get some basics straight before we start.
Any trait will have selective advantage only when it gets expressed. For example, let’s say a gene mutation caused a DNA that generates wings in an organism. But let’s say this DNA did not yet express itself, meaning the wings did not appear on the organism. IN that case, this DNA will not be selected by nature.
Next point: mutations take place in a single organism only. For example, one cat only. The same mutation will not occur in another cat.
Keeping that in mind, let’s proceed.
Imagine, the DNA that builds the sex organs gets formed through a mutation in an organism. This DNA will have to express itself in that organism to gain selective advantage. It can either express itself as penis or vagina, of course in some very rudimentary form. Say, it’s a penis. May be it’s only a bony protrusion or something of that sort.
How will this have any selective advantage, if it has no partner to mate with?
Moreover, mating is not just about two organs… there’s so much more to it. There should be chemical evolution that makes a female attractive to a male. It is way too complicated. And you know what, every time, you pose such questions, evolutionists will come up with a fantasy story to explain it.
Or do you say that a single organism underwent double mutation that led to the formation of both organs at the same time, and it became a hermaphrodite. That would be less probable than a person winning the super lotto lottery a hundred times in a row.
Evolution is a theory with very few proofs, and even the ones that are there have gaping holes in them, and a lot of imagination. Much of it stands on imagination on the hope that sometime in future they will find evidence for it.
As you rightly pointed out, thinking that compatible parts can evolve separately is highly silly… but if you believe in evolution, that’s what you will have to believe.
Evolution is not subject to mutation alone. I think you have some misconceptions about evolution that you need to address. I was going to talk about Darwin because he is my hero but then I found something in another topic that expressed my thoughts better. I've been doing a lot of reading and perhaps you'd be interested:
For ease of reference search this page for 'mutation'.
Thanks for the links. But I honestly think sending links as answers to questions doesn't really help. If we get down to trading links then it will be so boring, and we may not be able to stick to the core of our discussion. I would appreciate it if you can address my misconceptions. After all, I too think you have a lot of misconceptions, and instead of sending you links, which i have in plenty too, I am directly pointing out what they are. This way even our readers will be able to keep track of what the arguments are.
Yaliya - “It’s impossible to prove evolution.” Why should I even try???
There is no such thing as proof in matters beyond mathematics and logic. You can't prove god, you can't prove evolution, you can't prove Newton's laws, you can't prove you had cornflakes for breakfast, you can't even prove you are a human being, or that grass is green. Get over yourself. Only people who don't know hard it is to prove something speak of proving things outside of math and logic.
Yaliya - If that’s the case, it would be a case of loss of information, and not addition of new information.
I had a lot more I wanted to say but after reading the quote above I'm done, I see no reason to go on. The level of dishonesty required to say that that the addition of 6000 bits of information is "loss of information" is staggering. Dumb on purpose!
YOU SAID: “There is no such thing as proof in matters beyond mathematics and logic. You can't prove god, you can't prove evolution, you can't prove Newton's laws, you can't prove you had cornflakes for breakfast, you can't even prove you are a human being, or that grass is green. Get over yourself. Only people who don't know hard it is to prove something speak of proving things outside of math and logic.”
You still haven’t told me why you are trying to prove to me something you agree you can’t prove. You have just given more reasons as to why you can’t prove something. Fine, you are entitled to your position, but then why debate me so vociferously when you are so sure that you can’t prove something. And why take positions (evolution over creation) if according to you both are equally unprovable. Doesn’t that go against logic?
If you are so skeptical about proof, I wonder how you conduct your life? Why do you even sit and take the pain to type out all these long posts, when you are not even sure that I exist. Why me, you are not even sure you exist.
And why should math and logic be the cornerstone of proof, when both these are concepts that have emanated from the human mind, which in itself can’t be proven to exist. Can you prove consciousness exists? If not, then have can what you are conscious of ever be proven to exist.
YOU SAID: “I had a lot more I wanted to say but after reading the quote above I'm done, I see no reason to go on. The level of dishonesty required to say that that the addition of 6000 bits of information is "loss of information" is staggering. Dumb on purpose!”
And this comes from a person who says nothing can be proved “not even what I had for breakfast.” In every word of your post, there is an assertion of certainty, which can only emanate from proof. You are so sure that the Ecoli experiment has proved that mutation generates information. That’s why you are riling with rage when I disagree.
However, I had mentioned clearly that this SEEMS to be LIKE another experiment involving bacteria evolving an enzyme to process non-natural sugar. And that mutation actually involved loss of information. I had also stated that I will come back with a detailed explanation on what I think. If you had given your own maxim “Nothing can be proven” some weightage then you would have shown the patience of hearing me out at least, before dismissing it as Dumb on Purpose.