Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

This thread should be called the MEGA God of the Gaps Fallacy thread. If there's something missing, then God. Ironically, a mystery in itself, open to all kinds of speculations.

But that's no different than Multiverse speculation. Otherwise, the Darwin of gaps rears its ugly head there, again! Unless of course, one can hypothesize the first species ex nihilo; reconcile say, the appreciation of both music and scientific theories themselves, along with a whole host of other quality-of-life human phenomena that confers no biological survival advantage!

Multiverse theories can be put right beside other philosophical speculations. They are not accepted scientific theories. Unlike natural evolution of species, which is an accepted fact at the foundation of biological sciences. Nothing makes sense in biology if not under the light of evolution.

[EricPH]

I'm sorry, Eric, but you don't understand enough about evolution to discuss this with you.

The thread asks about intelligent design.

Billions of years ago, there were only prokaryotes. That you expect them to have organs makes clear how unqualified you are to speak on this topic. There's no point trying to educate you about microbes and their organelles because you wouldn't understand, nor even try to understand.

Five billion years ago there was no life on Earth. 3.7 billion years ago life starts, presumably this life did not have the DNA code for eyes. At some point DNA for eyes had to come into existence, in order for it to mutate 1800 times.

I could teach you much in this area, but you only want to argue, not to learn.

The four links you supplied are full of phrases like, could have, probably, likely, we think, possibly, believed to be, etc. Scientists are being truthful when they use these phrases. Why should I be convinced if scientists lack the evidence to back up their convictions? They do not categorically explain how life could evolve by natural means only.

Nilsson's explanation only says how a single eye lens might evolve in 364,000 years. His explanation amounts to putting a camera lens on your arm, it serves no purpose. There is no explanation of how the optical nerves, the brain and the limbs also evolved in 1800 incremental steps to benefit from a superior eye lens. There is no explanation how a pair of eyes could evolve.

In his model, Nilsson sets out seven specific goals on his computer in order to plot a path for an eye lens to evolve. But blind evolution has no goals.

The more questions you ask as to how the eye might evolve, leads to the conclusion that it could only happen with intelligent design. The Sun god couldn't do it.

[Count Lucanor]

The more questions you ask as to how the eye might evolve, leads to the conclusion that it could only happen with intelligent design. The Sun god couldn't do it.

That's a fallacy of false dichotomy. If evolution could not explain the eye, then either we don't know how the eye came to be, or we know of another process that explains it, and in that case we should be able to describe it with a reasonable level of detail. There's nothing like that in "intelligent design", which is no different than saying "magic did it".

[Sy Borg]

The more questions you ask as to how the eye might evolve, leads to the conclusion that it could only happen with intelligent design. The Sun god couldn't do it.

That's a fallacy of false dichotomy. If evolution could not explain the eye, then either we don't know how the eye came to be, or we know of another process that explains it, and in that case we should be able to describe it with a reasonable level of detail. There's nothing like that in "intelligent design", which is no different than saying "magic did it".

Yes, theists seek certainty. Qualifiers like "probably" and "maybe" are not signs of logic and self-control to them, but weakness. After all, the Bible never says "maybe" :lol:

There are many clues about the evolution of various organs. The focus on eyes is bizarre, because the same could be said for the evolution of ears, noses, tongues and tastebuds, electroreception and heat-sensing. The focus is always on eyes. Given the many types of eyes in nature, from rudimentary light-sensing organs to the extreme clarity of eagles, it's pretty clear how eyes roughly came about. It's only fine details that require qualifiers.

Certainly the practice of inserting an anthropomorphic male spirit into any tiny knowledge gap in science is both dishonest and mistaken.

[EricPH]

That's a fallacy of false dichotomy. If evolution could not explain the eye, then either we don't know how the eye came to be,

Truthfully, this is where we seem to be today.

or we know of another process that explains it, and in that case we should be able to describe it with a reasonable level of detail.

Or we are searching for another process which we are unable to describe; even with all our superior knowledge.

There's nothing like that in "intelligent design", which is no different than saying "magic did it".

If God created the universe and life, we can still search for that process. Logic tells us that some kind of magic happened. The universe and life came from something. Either something always existed and had no beginning, or something did not come from anything.

[EricPH]

Yes, theists seek certainty. Qualifiers like "probably" and "maybe" are not signs of logic and self-control to them, but weakness. After all, the Bible never says "maybe"

We have faith and trust that God is in control. Science should not rest on beliefs and things that could be. Science should have evidence.

The focus on eyes is bizarre,

Darwin is probably to blame, he singled out eyes as a problem.

Given the many types of eyes in nature, from rudimentary light-sensing organs to the extreme clarity of eagles, it's pretty clear how eyes roughly came about. It's only fine details that require qualifiers.

The fine detail is a huge problem. Design is all about detail, how do you link many things together to make the eye work? Mutation are a change in genetic material that results from an error in replication of DNA. Nilsson's model of the eye lens depends on 1800 incremental steps; and 1800 errors in replication of DNA. This is not how design works.

Certainly the practice of inserting an anthropomorphic male spirit into any tiny knowledge gap in science is both dishonest and mistaken.

We can rule out the Sun god too.

[Belindi]

Eric, what if God designed evolution by natural selection?

[Sculptor1]

Eric, what if God designed evolution by natural selection?

What if natural selection designed the very idea of god?

[Belindi]

Eric, what if God designed evolution by natural selection?

What if natural selection designed the very idea of god?

Indeed. However my question was designed as WD40 on Eric's stuck weathervane.

[3017Metaphysician]

This thread should be called the MEGA God of the Gaps Fallacy thread. If there's something missing, then God. Ironically, a mystery in itself, open to all kinds of speculations.

But that's no different than Multiverse speculation. Otherwise, the Darwin of gaps rears its ugly head there, again! Unless of course, one can hypothesize the first species ex nihilo; reconcile say, the appreciation of both music and scientific theories themselves, along with a whole host of other quality-of-life human phenomena that confers no biological survival advantage!

Multiverse theories can be put right beside other philosophical speculations. They are not accepted scientific theories. Unlike natural evolution of species, which is an accepted fact at the foundation of biological sciences. Nothing makes sense in biology if not under the light of evolution.

Not so fast. In Multiverse, if something exists, everything exists. Otherwise, you bear the burden of explaining where Singularity came from! In other words, if physics had the answer to that, Multiverse would not be logically necessary to posit.

Similarly, since Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo, the same problem persists. Hence you must explain not only where that first hunk of dirt came from, but where is all that biological information respectively!!

Keep trying Count!

[Sculptor1]

Eric, what if God designed evolution by natural selection?

What if natural selection designed the very idea of god?

Indeed. However my question was designed as WD40 on Eric's stuck weathervane.

I think you might need more than WD40!

[EricPH]

Eric, what if God designed evolution by natural selection?

I have said a few times on this thread, I have no problems with two thirds of the basic algorithm for evolution. Struggles for existence and natural selection. We have visible evidence that this exists today.

The huge problem is randomly mutated genes. 3.7 billion years ago there was single cell life, presumably, these cells did not have the DNA for eyes, bones, muscles etc. Somehow these genes had to come into existence first; before they could randomly mutate by errors caused in replication. I cannot understand how compounding by 1800 lucky errors in replication, you can end up with anything useful. I can understand maybe half a dozen lucky errors, but not 1800.

I understand the power of natural selection, but 1800 lucky errors have to happen first in order for an eye lens shape to evolve.

I am very cautious of WD40, it was responsible for a fractured elbow; when I went over the handlebars on a penny farthing! Fortunately, I was able to pass on my genes before this happened!

[Belindi]

Eric, what if God designed evolution by natural selection?

I have said a few times on this thread, I have no problems with two thirds of the basic algorithm for evolution. Struggles for existence and natural selection. We have visible evidence that this exists today.

The huge problem is randomly mutated genes. 3.7 billion years ago there was single cell life, presumably, these cells did not have the DNA for eyes, bones, muscles etc. Somehow these genes had to come into existence first; before they could randomly mutate by errors caused in replication. I cannot understand how compounding by 1800 lucky errors in replication, you can end up with anything useful. I can understand maybe half a dozen lucky errors, but not 1800.

I understand the power of natural selection, but 1800 lucky errors have to happen first in order for an eye lens shape to evolve.

I am very cautious of WD40, it was responsible for a fractured elbow; when I went over the handlebars on a penny farthing! Fortunately, I was able to pass on my genes before this happened!

Natural selection is not entirely easy to understand the details of. The last time I looked biologists were still revising a few details of the theory. Is your scepticism based on the details of the theory, or is your belief in God the source of your scepticism?

[Sy Borg]

It's posited that the first life may have been based on RNA, which is more subject to mutations than DNA. Again Eric, your lack of interest in biology shows.

You see, biologists don't study to justify or disprove people's ideas. They study because they are passionately interested in life. Until you muster the passion to study - based on curiosity rather than affirmation - you will always make misguided,, naive postings.

You clearly have no concept of deep time, just how long a million years is, let alone a billion, and how much can happen in such humongous tracts of time. Do you know how long Homo sapiens has existed?

I suggest that you would learn more useful information by actually reading up evolutionary biology rather than consume articles and podcasts that argue against it. Of course, that's only if you are interested ...

[Count Lucanor]

This thread should be called the MEGA God of the Gaps Fallacy thread. If there's something missing, then God. Ironically, a mystery in itself, open to all kinds of speculations.

But that's no different than Multiverse speculation. Otherwise, the Darwin of gaps rears its ugly head there, again! Unless of course, one can hypothesize the first species ex nihilo; reconcile say, the appreciation of both music and scientific theories themselves, along with a whole host of other quality-of-life human phenomena that confers no biological survival advantage!

Multiverse theories can be put right beside other philosophical speculations. They are not accepted scientific theories. Unlike natural evolution of species, which is an accepted fact at the foundation of biological sciences. Nothing makes sense in biology if not under the light of evolution.

Not so fast. In Multiverse, if something exists, everything exists. Otherwise, you bear the burden of explaining where Singularity came from! In other words, if physics had the answer to that, Multiverse would not be logically necessary to posit.

Perhaps you think a multiverse is needed, but from a scientific point of view, it is not. Your analogy between an hypothetical multiverse and the theory of evolution only describes what your belief is, not what actually is.

Similarly, since Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo, the same problem persists.

Problem? What problem? There's no problem with the huge amount of evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection. Unlike "intelligent design", for which there's no evidence and the argument from ignorance is posited instead.