RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mike PSS

Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2006,09:19   

Finally got my syntax correct.  Tried to post this yesterday.
This whole train wreck (you must me an unlucky traveller, this is the fifth one this month) started after your feeble attempt to "prove" design".  Despite being pulped, misted, and dispersed to the nether regions you summarized your (fully refuted) points in a meanderring post that had no direct link between cause and effect.
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,15:48)

Look.  Let's simplify this even further.

1) Stone age ancestor has to get smarter, better lookin', more civilized, etc.
2) What's a Pithecanthropus supposed to do to achieve this?
3) Well mutate!  By golly!  
4) Mutate, mutate, mutate ... keep them dogies mutatin' (Note: recombination only makes varied Pithecanthropi, not Super-Pithecanthropi)
5) Problem: how do we keep the harmful ones from outrunning the good ones? (In spite of natural selection)
6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version.
8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
9) Meanwhile:  mutate, mutate, mutate ...
10) Problem: We now have no mechanism for helping the good mutations outrun the bad ones
11) Problem: this will lead to genetic meltdown according to the geneticists
12) Hey wait a minute!  Didn't Crow say we are genetically INFERIOR to these ancestors?
13) How did we get to be genetically inferior if mutations made us smarter, better lookin', etc.?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious problem.

Conclusion:  A Designer, not mutations and recombination, created humans.

You used this as a summary post about mutations (eating Crow indeed) but you felt if you simplified your argument then MAYBE the readers on this board would understand your point....
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,18:28)
Let's try a new tack on this mutation thing ...

Russell (or anyone)--  Since you called me down on my watchmaker analogy ...

What do you think is the fundamental difference between a watch, and a butterfly (to pick any old critter)?

(This may sound unrelated, but go with me on it ... just answer the question.  Hint:  I'm looking for 10 words or less.)

So you posted this additional "challange" to the "evo's"...
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,12:21)
(Ooops!  Pardon me ... I forgot ... there IS no debate ... strike that!;)

"What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

One word.


All the answers given by you guys are correct, but they are not as fundamental as this key difference.  Think about it.

First, how are they similar?
1) Both are constructed from the exact same elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
2) Both have a legitimate purpose for their existence outside themselves: watches tell time, make the wearer feel classy, etc., butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc.
3) Both get worn out over time
4) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above

So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?


That's it really in the final analysis.

1) The butterfly can reproduce.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial implications if we could figure out how to make watches reproduce!
2) The butterfly has self-maintenance systems.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial impact if someone would invent self-maintaining cars, washing machines and airplanes!
3) The butterfly can refuel itself automatically.  The watch has no such complex system.  We are now seeing some systems like this in man-made technology, i.e. the robot vacuum cleaner that can navigate itself to the charging station, etc.
4) The butterfly has all manner of highly sophisticated robotic systems--vision, touch, flight, navigation, taste, etc.  The watch has none of this.

On and on we could go, but you get the idea.

Simply this ...

1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence.
2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.

Think about it ...

Now, you've been flailing around this post for a week because you want to make qualitative conclusions from the quantitative basis of your argument.  Right in the last two points you actually state a quantitative measure ("MORE comlex systems...) yet you still don't get it.

You then blind-folded yourself and started arguing against your original post.  In response to Russel you used this twisted bit of illogic reasoning....  
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,22:52)

Dr. Russell Durbin says ...  
The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.

This is not correct.  Let me explain why.  Think about what reproductive capacity is.  Break it down and analyze it like a good scientist should.  

What you will find is that it simply means that the replication system (machines, tools, plans) are external to the watch, but in the case of the butterfly, the replication system is internal.  And this simply boils down to complexity, i.e. more in the case of the butterfly.

Do you see?

So the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch is, as I said -- COMPLEXITY -- more in the case of the butterfly.

This being the case, then it should be quite obvious that IF the watch requires a designer, then the butterfly does also, but much more so.

When Russell says reproductive capability is a "difference" between and watch and a butterfly YOU DISAGREE.  But (but....but....but....but) in your original post you stated for everyone that reproduction capability WAS A DIFFERENCE.

Then you ramble on about MORE and LESS complexity (a quantitative measure) but you eventually seem to think this is a qualitative measure.

You are absolutely lost in your attempt to present this idea based upon complexity.  You don't know what you said, don't know where your going, and don't know how to get there anyway.  Time to move on to the ice age.

Mike PSS

HINT:  Remember Dave.  All you have to give up is the 6000 year old thing and a lot of the arguments you make will have a better, more reasonable basis.  Think about it.

**Edit** Fixed the reference to quantitative.  Thanks Improv.

  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]