Why is it more reasonable to conclude common descent rather than common design from the similarity we see among species. I would argue that common design is far more reasonable. Here is why. This is a quote from the article and the full article can be found at the link below.
Conclusion
The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.
Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the New Scientist article admits, “Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated, it’s being “annihilated.” Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.
The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry...
You misunderstand the evidence. Similarities are important hints, but they aren't the whole of it. Consider ERVs. ERVs are dormant retroviruses that, like HIV, essentially locks itself in the DNA of its host. The difference with HIV is that ERVs by definition don't do anything. They're duds. However, once an animal gets an ERV the "marker" on its DNA will, along with the rest of its genes, get passed onto its offspring.
For example, suppose our common ancestor with chimps had, from its forebears, had within it 6 ERVs randomly placed along its DNA. ERVs can be removed by mutations but in general they don't because if they don't harm the species, removing it would not be favored or unfavored by natural selection. So after this ancestor splits off in its evolution, one branch becoming modern chimps, the other becoming modern humans, in theory both the chimps and the humans should retain these genetic markers, "ERVs" in the same spots along their DNA. Could it be a coincidence? Well, as we've all heard from our enthusiastic biology teachers, our genetic code is such that it could fill bookshelves with all the necessary volumes. There is, for anyone ERV, 3,000,000,000 (3 billion) bases it could integrate with -- and it does so randomly. The chances that there would even be ONE match up is extremely improbably, let alone a handful, let alone dozens, let alone hundreds.
This isn't just theory, nor is this just a potential. ERVs are very real, and humans and chimps share many more than 6. So do all related species, and it is just one irrefutable proof of common ancestry. There are many, some even more profound. Scientists aren't stupid.
Also. you start with the assumption that neo-Darwinian evolution is true and then set out to prove it. How does your argument not commit the fallacy of circular reasoning?
About "Common Ancestry"?
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and notes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen Jay Gould
“With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved. … It is not at all what might have been expected.” T. S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 253
“No one has found any such in-between creatures … and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.” George Alexander, “Alternative Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978
“If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” Darwin, 344
It seems to me that the Cambrian Explosion, well, blows the theory of common ancestry apart.
So why is it more reasonable to conclude that the similarities are because of a theory that is least likely (common ancestry) than one that is more likely (common design)
So why is it more reasonable to conclude that the similarities are because of a theory that is least likely (common ancestry) than one that is more likely (common design)
Evidence: homologous structures, endogenous retroviruses, body plans, genetics etc. etc.
And the quotes you provide are out of context, misrepresentations of what the people were arguing--quote-mined.
We need to be clear about what kind of evolution is in question. If we are speaking of micro-evolution (small changes within a species) then there is no question; every breeder will tell you that it happens and everyone has seen it happen. But if you are talking about Macro Evolution (one species becoming another) it simply doesn't happen, never, without exception. Ask any breeder; cat's remain cats and dogs remain dogs. Darwin was wrong in his extrapolation when he concluded that small variations over time could lead to a whole new species; it doesn't happen. There is no evidence any where that shows it. All you have in the fossil record are fully formed and fully functional creatures; there are no transitional forms, none. When the anomalies of a scientific theory grow to large the theory should be abandoned.
The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time scale. Many small mutations over long periods of time accumulate to the point where the final species is distinct from the original. To help you understand this, imagine the process of human aging:
A baby never transforms into an old man through miraculous transformation. Instead it goes through a number of small, virtually undetectable changes, until the final result is something that is completely different from the original. If you looked at any two consecutive days, there would appear to be no difference, and in fact you would probably have difficulty determining which day came after the other. However, when these changes accumulate over time we get an old man.
In addition, I'm guessing that you are unaware that we have actually seen speciation occur both in nature and in controlled experiments... so here you're just wrong... it does happen.
And speaking of things you're wrong about:
All you have in the fossil record are fully formed and fully functional creatures; there are no transitional forms, none.
Actually, what we have in the fossil record are examples of more generalized forms from later periods of time changing into more complex organisms.... but don't take my word for it:
What you fail to realize is what every breeder knows. All breeding spikes and then plateaus, there is a line that can't be crossed no matter how much breeding you do; dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats.
But the two biggest questions for Darwinism is where did life come from and where does genetic information come from. Since life and information are abstract realities there can be no naturalistic explanation for them. And if naturalism were true these abstract realities and all others wouldn't exist. Their very existence disproves Darwinism and naturalism because these theories can't account for them, yet there they are.
First of all, Dawinism is a theory and hasn't been prooven. Therefore you cannot prove or disprove it without substantial evidence. You are claiming on the lack of evidence as to where life came from. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the process in which already existent organisms undergo a punctuated equilibrium of genetic mutations.
The island of Madagascar is a prime example. After the island broke from Africa, lemurs began to inhabit the island. As to how they got there, there are several theories. The most likely of which is human intervention. This initial species of lemur throughout the years has undoutably evolved into 99 singular species.
punctuated equilibrium. And why did Mr Gould propose that theory? The Cambrian Explosion. Why is that a problem? Because it destroys the theory of gradual descent.
About the orgin of life, what I'm claiming is that you have no explanation for it and can't account for it. That leaves a gaping hole in your theory.
About the Lemur, the're still Lemurs. All this is an example of micro evolution, small variations with in a species, which nobody denies. If your citing this to prove macro evolution, one animal changing into another animal, I don't see how this helps your position because that's not what's happening. And we all know what will happen if the gene pool is expanded, they'll revert to back the most common characteristics. They'll do what Darwin's finches did and all animals do when the available gene pool is not limited. This is something every breeder knows.
punctuated equilibrium. And why did Mr Gould propose that theory?
Because gradualism did not account for every observation ever made. Punctuated Equilibrium explains radical evolutionary change in reaction to fast environmental transformation. There's no problem with PE.
The Cambrian Explosion. Why is that a problem? Because it destroys the theory of gradual descent.
It "destroys" some assumptions of gradualism, but it does not destroy evolution or evolutionary theory. The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of some Punctuated Equilibrium and gradualism, because we see a continuation of certain phyla. Genomics ratifies this.
About the orgin of life, what I'm claiming is that you have no explanation for it and can't account for it.
Abiogenesis is not included in evolutionary theory, because evolution occurs after life has already started.
About the Lemur, the're still Lemurs. All this is an example of micro evolution, small variations with in a species, which nobody denies.
Allopatric and Sympatric Speciation processes have been observed in nature and the laboratory. We can also interpolate macroevolutionary diversification from paleontological research: the fossil record; comparative morphology: body plans, hox genes, similarities and differences in phenotypes and phenotypic function, vestigial or basal features; through population genetics: gene frequency change over time, the fact that genes are transmitted through reproduction across generations and can be phylogenetically traced and lineages formed categorically; through comparative virology: endogenous retroviruses among others. And the thing is, these all overlap and if there isn't any evolution occurring within and across species, then these disciplines would not be in agreement.
And we all know what will happen if the gene pool is expanded, they'll revert to back the most common characteristics.
And that's why people criticize you.... when you try to tell people things like this they will laugh at you because you would be so wrong that it hurts.
The object of CD is to create debates that get people fired up. I put up this debate in order to get people fired up and get them to respond. I got a response from you ;)
So who's dumber? Me for putting up a debate in order to get people fired up and get them to respond or you for getting fired up and responding. ;)
Downvotes don't count toward the total score, only upvotes. See the faq.
The reason the score for the right column went up when you upvoted JC's comment on the right was because in that argument, he is "supporting" hamandcheese's argument.
I up-voted all of your arguments and guess what? Lo and behold, my up-vote added points to the opposing side! What the fuck is goin on? The over-all tally is accruing up-votes on both sides of the argument when your side is up-voted. But, the up-votes are added only to your opponents when your opponents are up-voted! This bullshit has been going on for a long time and I'm now pissed!!! What a fucking joke!!! I hope you take the time to confirm the facts.
I care not for points! But, it is self-evidently true that someone or someones other than ourselves does care about points!
Integrity of a debating format is of greater importance. In fact we no longer can presume that CD is about debating, but rather justification of the un-justifiable.
The guy who wrote this article is falling prey to one of the most common misconceptions about Darwinian evolution: That it's optimizing.
Evolution is NOT optimizing. The examples about antler size are a text book illustration of this. In game theory it's called a "race to the bottom" and it is the cause of all the diversity you see around us. Take the example of trees. Have you ever wondered why trees are so damn large? It must be a huge drain on the system, and an incredibly tall order to fill. Why in the world would evolution make them so cumbersome?
The answer is the race to the bottom. Imagine a tree's hypothetical short ancestors in a field. They are all competing for sunlight. Suppose they are all 3 feet tall. If a mutant tree is born that makes it 4 feet tall it will tend to have more success than its cousins and eventually its 4 foot gene will proliferate and now all the trees are 4 feet tall. But look -- they're all on an even playing field again, and any advantage is lost. The years go by and another outlier emerges, pushing 5 feet tall. Once again that gene proliferates and now all the trees are 5 feet tall. This will continue until the species settles into what is known as an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. In the trees case it is when its current environment simply won't permit it to get any bigger. Now you have a field of 100 foot trees that are enormously inefficient, and no individual tree is better for it. Even if it is most economical for all the trees to be the same height, unfortunately evolution doesn't work this way. It isn't optimizing. Put simply, what is rational for the individual tree is collectively self defeating for the species. This is actually a fulfillment of Darwinian theory because it contradicts "group evolution". If the tree wanted to optimize as a species it would just be a thin organic ooze on the surface of the earth.
Take another classic example: Peacocks. Picture the following contest between two peacocks, one with a short tail and one with a longer one. If they both have the same tale they both end up having 2 offspring and living the same length of time. However, if one grows a tale that is slightly longer and more impressive, the balance shifts. Long Tail now has 4 offspring, but because he's slower he ends up dying younger than short tale. Evolution only cares about offspring, though, so Short Tale ends up going extinct and Long Tail takes over. Once long tail is the norm any advantage it gave the original long tail is lost, because they're all the same again. So it goes back to the 2 offspring each arrangement, only now they live much shorter lives. Woops! If only evolution had foresight.
His other arguments are a little stupider. First, no one serious these days thinks Africans are less intelligent. 99.999% of our brains evolution happened before anyone even left the continent, and modern genome research has shown that racial difference are superficial.
Furthermore, a common misconception is that all visible differences amongst people or other animals must have an adaptive use. This is false. Random mutation is, well, random, and variation that occurs which is neither useful nor bad will stay. It might proliferate simply because it coincided with an actually useful mutation, or it might just be white noise. Why do Native Americans have dark, straight hair? Because they do. There isn't necessarily a reason. This doesn't in anyway refute Darwinism, and in fact is perfectly consistent with it.
It might be more convincing if the arguments he was disputing weren't being made by a biology-illiterate "racial-realist".
I wish I could up vote you twice. I've mentioned in several debates that all people, even if you take the Shaq and a female midget, have no more than 0.01 genetic difference, and the differences we see from one human to another are all superficial, and behavioral and intelligence differences are all social or short-term genetic (parent to child, not thousands of years of parents to children.)
Just that if you have two parents with blue eyes, it's more likely you'll have blue eyes. I don't have the sources available, and it could be outdated info, but as unpredictable as genetics are, I believe how recent a certain characteristic has shown up in one's direct ancestry plays a role in how likely a child is to inherit it.
But it's all relative, there's white-as-a-ghost couples that have had clearly African looking children, and vice-versa, so somewhere in the past, those genes were still present and passed down,
I think just the likelihood decreases over time and as more and more genetic options become available to each new generation, which is always the case, preceding characteristics become less likely to emerge.
Recentness is technically irrelevant. Your genetic make up is a basically random half of your fathers make up and a random half of your mothers. Which genes you are more likely to inherit has to do with how dominate that gene is. How dominate or recessive a gene is has to do with intrinsic factors with the alleles.
For example, it's not the case that an albino has inherited genes of a pale ancestor, as some mistakenly believe. It occurs when the two genes you get from your parents both happen to be the recessive one. If your mom and dad are both black, they actually each have two genes each for skin colour (one for each of their own parents) where the black gene is either the only option (their two possible genes happened to be the same) or their black gene is dominate (when paired again another gene for skin colour it tends to win out). Suppose they both have this latter kind. That means your dad has this pair for skin color: B+R (black plus recessive) and your mom has this pair: B+R
Out of those 4, you will get one from each parent. If you get B+B, you can only be black. If you get B+R, B dominates R so you can only be black. If you get R+R you might get unlucky and inherit a non-functional gene. What this means is that you won't be black. You won't be 'white' either. You literally lack a functioning gene for skin colour expressed as a lack of melanin pigment.
So you see how recentness is irrelevant. Those recessive genes may be incredibly old, or they be recent mutations. Furthermore, the fact that you have two parents with blue eyes doesn't make blue eyes more recent. Who knows? They may also both have the gene for green eyes too! Its unlikely for the child to have green eyes because out of these 4 out comes, B,G G,B B,B G,G only one produces green eyes. This isn't doing the odds justice because it's already very unlikely that both your parents recessive genes will be green. Dad's may be hazel. If that's the case, and hazel is dominate over green but not blue, it's impossible to get green eyes: B,B = blue. B,G = blue. B,H = Blue. H,G = Hazel! Regardless of how new or old that gene is.
I've already hinted at how simplified this is. It's actually why more complicated, especially with eye colour, where your eye colour may end up being determined by 6 or 7 unrelated genes, and all their possible combos.
The trouble with this theory is genetics. There is not a one to one ratio between trait and gene; it's more like a hundred to one. A hundred genes determine one trait. Please note that I'm simplifying for the sake of clarity. You would have to get a hundred beneficial mutations to get one beneficial trait. The odds are simply against this happening.
Besides we have names for mutations; leukemia, cancer etc etc. Take for example mental retardation; one flaw renders the creature dysfunctional. Mutations cripple and destroy; not improve. And this makes Neo-Darwinian Evolution self defeating since any mutation would be eliminated through natural selection.
However, the greater problem is that there is no natural means by which genetic information is created. Which means a mutation would be a loss of information, not the creation of it. Therefore there is no way for a creature to change it's self. That requires an intelligent outside agent acting upon it to write the code.
And finally you have the problem of entropy; things work towards a state of simplicity; not complexity. In short, the world is falling apart not getting better.
When people use the term "Darwinism" it usually means (but not always) that they don't really understand the science of evolution. While it is true that Darwin did propose the basic concept of evolution (small mutations, selected by their ability to help an organism to have offspring, accumulate over time causing speciation) there are a number of other factors that contribute to evolution that Darwin didn't know about. This is not because he was dumb, but because there was no way to know at the time. Lucky for us, science advances our knowledge of the world, and we have now been able to fill in the gaps thanks to discoveries in genetics, archeology, and biology as a whole.
Darwin for example couldn't explain how traits were passed from generation to generation. We now know that this is from genetics, and with the study of genetics we have actually found certain ways in which organisms evolve which are not, in fact "Darwinian." Horizontal gene transfer is one example. I don't want to go into any great detail here, but essentially what happens is, genetic information is passed between two different species, as opposed to being passed from generation to generation. If you want a more detailed explanation here is the wiki article.
So in a sense, yes, evolution is not completely Darwinian... only predominately Darwinian in that:
1. Genetic mutations occur in species.
2. These mutations are sometimes beneficial to the survival of that species.
3. Those mutations which are beneficial allow members of the species that carry that mutation to pass the mutation onto their young.
4. These mutations can accumulate over time.
5. Eventually the accumulation of mutations will lead to more complex organisms.
This process has been observed over shorter time periods by scientists in both controlled experiments and nature, and observed over much longer periods of time in the fossil record.
All of these finds have been validated by the fact that we now have the ability to sequence DNA, proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) the fact that evolution is the absolute best explanation for the evidence, and, despite over 100 years of study, has not been shown to be invalid in even one instance.
So now I would like to ask you a question. How do you account for the evidence (fossils, DNA, morphology, embryology, observed instances of evolution etc...)? It sounds like you either don't understand the evidence, don't understand the theory or (most likely) both.
Excellent post andsoccer, in contraposition to lawncares babble. The only part I would nit pick at is the very first sentence. I don't think the existence of phenomena like horizontal gene transfer necessarily make the term Darwinism obsolete. While I would whole heartily agree that Evolutionary Biology would be a much better term, Darwinism is in its normal sense used to mean 'natural selection' -- and it is undeniably the case that whether the adaptation was an internal mutation or some sort of purloining from another organism, it ends up coming down to whether that amended organism will survive or parish.
Darwin only spoke of variation. The mechanism of variation was to him a matter incident to be determined by future generations with improved technologies, as you mentioned.
This process has been observed over shorter time periods by scientists in both controlled experiments and nature, and observed over much longer periods of time in the fossil record.
All of these finds have been validated by the fact that we now have the ability to sequence DNA, proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) the fact that evolution is the absolute best explanation for the evidence, and, despite over 100 years of study, has not been shown to be invalid in even one instance.
So now I would like to ask you a question. How do you account for the evidence (fossils, DNA, morphology, embryology, observed instances of evolution etc...)? It sounds like you either don't understand the evidence, don't understand the theory or (most likely) both.
Those five sentences contain no less than five fallacies in reasoning. If you can correctly identify two of them I will give an account of my understanding of what you are calling evidence.
By the way, the first parts of your reply are intellectually superior compared to your last BS.
Personally, I don’t care what you or any other person thinks about any given subject, what I care to address is the irrationality of believing the incredible.
Well why don't you tell me what parts you disagree with, because: the first paragraph is merely statements of facts, which, if you would like I can back up with an incredible amount of sources. The second paragraph talks about the validity of evolution, which is indisputable (but if you would like to try, be my guest.) The third sentence is a challenge to you to provide some alternative to evolution by natural selection as to the diversity of life on this planet. I also stand by my last sentence, because I believe it to be the truth.
There is nothing incredible about evolution, and no "belief" is required. We see small mutations occurring over short periods of time, and know that these mutations are selected by the environment in which a species lives, and that these mutations can accumulate.
We also see substantial evidence of a gradual evolution from more general organisms to more complex organisms in the fossil record. The farther back you go, the more general these forms become. In fact, the fossil record is so extensive that we can trace virtually every important step in the evolution of most modern animals including humans.
Our fossil record is so good that scientists have actually been able to predict where fossils of a certain transitional form should be found, went to that place, and found the fossils they had predicted. Amazing, right? (By the way, the fossils were whale ancestors).
There is not one step in this entire process that could be considered "incredible" and your own incredulity of evolution is further evidence of your ignorance on the subject. I would suggest reading a book about it, or even watching a video (there are literally thousands on the internet). Perhaps then we can have an intelligent conversation about the subject, and I won't have to listen to your baseless claims about evolution.
You rejected my challenge and then proceeded to rely upon even more fallacies. I suspect that you are ignorant of much concerning deductive and inductive reason as well as the possible fallacies that occur in discourse. And as a consequence of that ignorance you will fail to recognize both valid and invalid inferences. These facts disqualify you from engaging in what you refer to as an intelligent conversation. Ergo, you are guilty of that which you accuse me, ie your own incredulity (unbelief) of evolution is further evidence of your ignorance on the subject.
You think I am incorrect, I know. I certainly won’t contradict myself in thinking otherwise concerning your ability to validly reason.
However, there is another possibility that I can’t eliminate. The possibility is that you are capable of logical discourse, but prefer to be deceitful and dishonest.
I've personally studied logic in school and in my spare time by reading Russel, Popper and just basic logic primers. I also am a big fan of Skeptic Magazine and debunking, both of which demand a keen understanding of fallacy.
On the contrary, it is your replies that seem to me to be fallacious. From false dichotomies to unsupported inferences, you worsen your hypocrisy by being incredibly condescending and dismissive.
I'll gladly accept any challenge you off me and without the highfalutin patronage -- on the one condition that you are actually open to expanding your knowledge and exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking. If you aren't then it will only me an exercise in pretense.
I've personally studied logic in school and in my spare time by reading Russel, Popper and just basic logic primers. I also am a big fan of Skeptic Magazine and debunking, both of which demand a keen understanding of fallacy.
That is certainly no argument from which I would infer you have satisfactorily learned logic. Reading, studying, and being a big fan of any subject, are not the equivalent of knowing any given subject, competently.
On the contrary, it is your replies that seem to me to be fallacious. From false dichotomies to unsupported inferences,
Which is it, either my replies are fallacious or they are not fallacious? Are you using the word seem to suggest your uncertainty of the qualities of my replies?
you worsen your hypocrisy by being incredibly condescending and dismissive.
A hypocrite,yes, incredibly condescending and dismissive,yes, knowingly both,yes I am. Now, the hypocrite part of my behavior is true of all of us, but the condescension and dismissiveness of my replies is always a reciprocation of the same by my opponents, although I may at times be more assertive in that regards.
I'll gladly accept any challenge you off me and without the highfalutin patronage -- on the one condition that you are actually open to expanding your knowledge and exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking. If you aren't then it will only me an exercise in pretense.
TU QUOQUE
This is your first challenge: How can one explore unfamiliar ways of thinking? Please explain.
That is certainly no argument from which I would infer you have satisfactorily learned logic. Reading, studying, and being a big fan of any subject, are not the equivalent of knowing any given subject, competently.
That's self-evident. To point that out isn't to be making a profound point, it's simply a red-herring disguised as captain obvious. Can we please just actually talk about the subject instead of meander through this rhetoric and logically pomposity.
Which is it, either my replies are fallacious or they are not fallacious? Are you using the word seem to suggest your uncertainty of the qualities of my replies?
Would you prefer if I said, "it is demonstrably the case that you are being illogical" instead of "you seem to be the illogical one," or instead would you prefer that we quit these juvenile games of semantics.
TU QUOQUE
You strike me as someone who just read a pamphlet on logical fallacies and hasn't yet felt the pangs of their diminishing returns in evaluating discourse. What you quote is not a Tu Quoque, though it wouldn't matter greatly if it was. A proper example of Tu Quoque is best summarized in the maxim "two wrongs don't make a right." Its the point that, if someone criticizes you for say, planting pipe bombs, it doesn't negate the immorality of planting pipe bombs to say that the fellow accusing you is guilty as well. What you quoted, conversely, is me saying in short that I will engage with you in any debate on the condition that you are open to changing your mind. Any productive dialog, you would agree, requires an open mind -- if only a crack.
This is your first challenge: How can one explore unfamiliar ways of thinking? Please explain.
I was hoping your challenge would be related to biological evolution, but if we must play these troll games: Exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking simply means to consider new ideas with the necessity of an open mind -- because we can't judge a priori the validity of a dialectic, belief or piece of evidence without first giving it a fair trial.
Now here's your challenge: Drop the rhetoric and make a substantive argument, either positively, or disputing something related to evolution I've said in past posts.
There will not be any productive dialog betwixt us for one simple reason: Exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking simply means to consider new ideas with the necessity of an open mind -- because we can't judge a priori the validity of a dialectic, belief or piece of evidence without first giving it a fair trial.
I will give you one opportunity to revise your answer. And if your answer still fails to demonstrate sound reasoning I will in-turn demonstrate your failure to reason. And until you can prove to me that you are reasonable I will not waste any additional time in reply to your babble.
I'm baffled at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions could in anyway be logically inconsistent. At worst you could accuse me of tautology for the "to judge you need a fair trial" remark, but as useless as pointing that out would be, it even wouldn't be necessarily be true as trial is qualified, and at any rate the whole thing is self evident.
I will in-turn demonstrate your failure to reason.
I'm genuinely curious. If you so fancy yourself such an Aquinas, pray tell.
I'm baffled at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions could in anyway be logically inconsistent
Consider the contrary sentence:
I’m convinced at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions is logically consistent. ( I think you see the problem)
However, in this instance, you are baffled that the quantity of the propositions contained within a sentence does not determine the quality of the sentence. Quality is not inferred from the quantity of propositions contained within your sentence.
Moreover, there are many sentences that are fallacious. Here are a few examples of grammatically correct sentences that fail to meet logical standards:
The local bookstore sells all classes of books. (What does a bookstore sell? Books! Not classes of books)
I cannot argue. (No man can arrive at this conclusion without arguing within himself)
“The money belongs to the people, and I think we should give some of it back to the people.” -G.W. Bush on tax cuts (circa 2002)
I will forego listing countless other examples that demonstrate illogical sentences.
Now, before I continue my analysis of your post, are you willing to concede that some sentences, regardless of the number of propositions, are fallacies of self-refutation or inconsistency? If so, I will continue my analysis of your post.
You have to understand what logic is capable of, and I am perfectly aware of all the self-referential, defeatist and absurd sentences that arise in an imperfect, archaic grammar. This is why logic is often explored using symbols and algebra, but we have to make due with the tools we have. And that is precisely what logic is: a tool. Logic cannot prove anything, nor can is discover anything new. It can merely show that something is inconsistent or contradictory. It's therefore a desirable thing to understand in abstract in order to evaluate internal consistency, but there is a point when it becomes pedantic.
I concede (though I never explicitly claimed otherwise) that many sentences are logically impossible or paradoxical. It would be foolish to deny that. But, like in the law, there is a useful distinction between the letter and the intent -- that is to say, even though "The local bookstore sells all classes of books" is literally nonsensical, it's counter-productive not to recognize what the person who said that meant, in that perhaps the bookstore contains many genres and types of books.
The deconstructionists have been post-modern opportunists by taking up the literalist, purist position of the logic inherent in language. They have pointed out that language itself makes it impossible to be not self-referential to some extent, and thus circular. Similarly I could quite easily "deconstruct" virtually anything you have said so far -- no matter how axiomatic -- into a contradictory trail-mix. Luckily I am not so nihilistic, and recognize that the subjectivity and limits of language and logic arise because of human psychology, and not because reality is ineffable.
I hope that answer is satisfactory. If we are going to continue might I suggest creating a new debate or area to debate because right now our discussion is buried.
I think you both degenerated into Ad hominem. Insult is no argument; it's a sign of failure.
The question at hand is what best explains the phenomenon we see. Or to put it another way; what is the most reasonable cause for the effect we see. Let's say your a cop. You come across a dead body. The first question that needs to be answered is; what was the cause of death? Was it natural or something else. What you can't do is rule out homicide because then you've got a murder and you just don't like murders. If it's not by natural cause then the next question is: Who did it.
There is no natural cause that can adequately explain the diversity and complexity of life here on earth. Every attempt is woefully inadequate. But that leaves only one other explanation. (And to say aliens did it is to commit the fallacy of infinite regress.) The problem is we don't like the implication of an intelligent agent. So our problem is not evidential or intellectual; it is moral. Because were there is law, there is a law giver. And who would deny that the universe is governed by law; The entire scientific enterprise is based on it. And in this universe there is always consequences for breaking laws unless overruled by a higher law.
The trouble with the fossil record is that they are the wrong kind of fossil; we need transitional creatures not fully formed and functional ones. We need a half bat half chicken fossil and there are simply none. If macro evolution were true there should be thousands of them.
But please tell me the natural process that writes genetic code. Because reason tells me that highly sophisticated language is the sign of intelligence, not matter. It always seems to me that a mind manipulates matter and forms it into complex things. Rocks stay rocks till somebody mines them and turns them into cars. I've never seen a rock say, boy I really want to be a car. In short, a will is the mark of mind, not matter. To move from the simple to the complex requires a mind to think it, a design to follow (teleology) and a will to do it. Natural forces can do none of this. Natural forces are simple; water flows down hill, wind blows and things fall. But worst of all. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
You completely misunderstand what evolution is. There is not a single fossil that isn't transitional in some sense. However transitional fossils aren't like Kirk Cameron's infamous "craco-duck". They're all fully function, unique species that are adapted to their current environment. Early birds, which are descended from dinosaurs, evolved proto-feathers -- not as a "transition" to flight, but as a real time adaptation to the cold weather the ice age brought. It was only later that new circumstances adapted those insulating, hollow feathers to flight. Thus you won't find in the fossil record a half chicken, half t-rex. Instead you find a gradually changing morphology.
We have legged whales, for example, not because evolution had produced in the interim a half-cow-like creature and a half-orca-like creature, but because it was a uniquely adapted, fully functioning species, descended from a land mammal that had slowly adapted for water. As evolution further tailored it for water, legs grew less significant, however whales retail a pelvis and they even have deactivated genes for legs.
Similarly there are species of Salamander that blur the lines between salamander and snake. They are long and narrow, have defunct legs and so slither over the ground. Yet again they were fully functional, and represented gradual shift towards the serpentine, without any freakish hybrid.
Returning to birds, it is well known that chickens have deactivated genes for serrated teeth. Horses have deactivated genes for extra toes, and we know from the fossil record that early horses had more toes. The examples simply abound.
You ask the question: What is the natural process that writes genetic code. The answer that we've known to be the case for well over 150 years is natural selection. Once you understand the chemical nature of genetics, and evolution of DNA itself from RNA, natural selection really is as easy as water flows down hill. That is: Once you have replication with variation (something that occurs with basic chemistry) natural selection end up saying the following: that when something replicates and is better suited for further replication it will tend to replicate better. It's really a no-brainer. You further assert that natural forces can do none of this. I beg to differ! It's been observed not only indirectly through our DNA and the fossil record, but also directly, in laboratory experiments -- from every kind of bacteria you can imagine to small animals and insects.
Why, just the other day I read an article on a long experiment with fruit flies to give them increased longevity to better understand the aging process. The hypothesis was that organisms die of old age because after they've mated there is no natural selection pressure against it. Therefore, by introducing an environment that rewards the organism that has mates later in life, you will slowly evolve a species with an extended longevity. That is just what they did, and now there are labs with fruit flies living to the human equivalent of say 500 years! (I don't know the exact equivalency but it is a very long time).
So it comes down to not just denying overwhelming indirect evidence (plus the irrefutable like ERVs), but also denying direct observation! Instead creationists invent terms like 'micro-evolution' vs 'macro-evolution', which in actual evolutionary biology don't exist. That's like believing in inches but not feet. Nevertheless, the so called 'micro-evolution' is still 'writing genetic code,' albeit the equivalence of new words and sentences, whereas I guess 'macro-evolution' would be a paragraph or a chapter. Look, there has been over a century of debate and questioning on evolution, and none of what you said wasn't already addressed in the first edition of The Origin of Species. There has also been over a century of profound and overwhelming research -- to the point where you can find detailed papers on the evolution of nearly any animal! -- that if you ignored it you would be doing a great disservice to yourself and mankind.
