arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Unless of course it's a cuff link...Martinm said:Worse than that: once a link is found, you've got two more missing links to look for, one on either side
Phew I've a feeling this is going to take me a while to get through all that, but thanks it's a challenge 
There are two things first of all I think I need to make clear 1)I'm claiming any sort of victory, all I've done is put forward a theory (not even my own) and asked the question what is wrong with it and 2)I've got absolutely no religious agenda here, I just want to find out for myself if this theory is wrong - and that also means, by the way, that I'm not interested in debunking evolution, I genuinely want to know the answer to my question.
Actually I've just looked at the time and unfortunately that's all I'm able to write for now, but you've given me a lot of food for thought so I'll be back tomorrow at some point with an answer. And thanks penguin for that link, I would've gone and found it myself but I wasn't online.
Oh and one question since I can see your comment about waving my hand to make evidence go away - why is there a missing link?
Goodnight folks
There are two things first of all I think I need to make clear 1)I'm claiming any sort of victory, all I've done is put forward a theory (not even my own) and asked the question what is wrong with it and 2)I've got absolutely no religious agenda here, I just want to find out for myself if this theory is wrong - and that also means, by the way, that I'm not interested in debunking evolution, I genuinely want to know the answer to my question.
Actually I've just looked at the time and unfortunately that's all I'm able to write for now, but you've given me a lot of food for thought so I'll be back tomorrow at some point with an answer. And thanks penguin for that link, I would've gone and found it myself but I wasn't online.
Oh and one question since I can see your comment about waving my hand to make evidence go away
- why is there a missing link?Goodnight folks
Can I add about anything?
"If you take a mousetrap down to a very basic level as an example, you'll have a spring, some sort of device to trap the mouse, and the bait. The point is that that's the simpliest a mousetrap can be in order to work, and if you were missing one of those parts you would not have a useful trap. Right I hope that makes sense, because it's what I mean by irreducibly complex Anyway if we were to imagine a moustrap evolving by Darwins theories it would require all three parts to simultaneously come into existence. If only one or two of the parts came into existence, the moustrap would be useless so would not survive the moustrap equivalent of "survival of the fittest" "
Biological organisms are not mousetraps any more than they are watches.
But as far as living forms go,we may indeed marvel at a great adaptation.A small improvement over nothing is an improvement nonetheless,should it offer at least some benefit of keeping (which nature decides),it might very well be kept.
Against this,it could be raised that such a small change (be it an improvement or not) would be costly to keep and thus selected against (as demonstrated,however,it need not be so).
Additionally,a structure that is now adapted for a certain purpose,may originally have been worked on for additional purposes,providing varying forms of advantage.What this means,is that evolution does not wish or needs not to progressively build towards a single goal that may not be there.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/cartoons/behe-black-box.gif
"If you take a mousetrap down to a very basic level as an example, you'll have a spring, some sort of device to trap the mouse, and the bait. The point is that that's the simpliest a mousetrap can be in order to work, and if you were missing one of those parts you would not have a useful trap. Right I hope that makes sense, because it's what I mean by irreducibly complex Anyway if we were to imagine a moustrap evolving by Darwins theories it would require all three parts to simultaneously come into existence. If only one or two of the parts came into existence, the moustrap would be useless so would not survive the moustrap equivalent of "survival of the fittest" "
Biological organisms are not mousetraps any more than they are watches.
But as far as living forms go,we may indeed marvel at a great adaptation.A small improvement over nothing is an improvement nonetheless,should it offer at least some benefit of keeping (which nature decides),it might very well be kept.
Against this,it could be raised that such a small change (be it an improvement or not) would be costly to keep and thus selected against (as demonstrated,however,it need not be so).
Additionally,a structure that is now adapted for a certain purpose,may originally have been worked on for additional purposes,providing varying forms of advantage.What this means,is that evolution does not wish or needs not to progressively build towards a single goal that may not be there.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/cartoons/behe-black-box.gif
This question is tough to answer without knowing exactly how you define "missing link" but let me assume first that you mean "gaps in the fossil record". As Martinm mentioned above, any time you find one missing link, two more missing links appear -- one on either side of it. In Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer gives a visual example which should drive this point home. He puts two cups, identical in shape, but one much larger than the other, next to each other. Now, the "missing link" would be a cup whose size is between the two. Let's say you happen to find it. If you place it in between the two cups that are there, there are now two more missing links. One between the medium cup and the large cup, and another between the medium cup and the small cup. As you can see, unless you had every possible cup there would always be missing links, and in fact, the number of missing links grows as each new missing link is found. As this analogy applies to the fossil record, it would mean you would need the remains of every dead animal that ever existed to close all the gaps. Does this seem like a reasonable request? Not to me.MDK said:Oh and one question since I can see your comment about waving my hand to make evidence go away
If on the other hand when you say "missing link" you are talking about a common ancestor of apes and humans, well, it is a misconception that there is a single "missing link". According to evolution, there would be many missing links, and in fact many of these have been found.
If your definition of "missing link" is different from these two let us know. I'm sure somebody can help out.
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Since you first used the term, perhaps you could explain what you mean by "missing link". If I don't know what definition you are using, any response is likely to be at cross purposes.MDK said:
Oh and one question since I can see your comment about waving my hand to make evidence go away
If you have been to any natural history museum, you already know that there are many many transitional fossils already discovered.
CurtC
Illuminator
You might also want to have a look at this similar thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=205505
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=205505
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
MDK, all of the above. Especially Dawkins. And see my sig.
~~Paul
~~Paul
MDK- welcome aboard. I think you're going to have fun here and you have an interesting contribution to make.
You are right; scientific sceptics do have a certain "faith" in science. This is a short cut. If you browse the forum for a while, you will notice that people keep coming up with the same questions and ideas. Some subjects, like perpetual motion, are simple nonsense. Others, like evolution , are complex , counter intuitive and hard to get your head around.
There is a danger here for the sceptic. It is easier to rely on the supposition that science is "right" , than to actually study the evidence. We do try, but it's difficult.
One can become a believer in any dogma in seconds, but keeping up with any science is very demanding, even for professional scientists. For the rest of us , it's impossible. So we are obliged to take much on faith. But we watch the patterns. I am no phycisist, but if I hear of a fixed magnet powering a car, I know I am hearing nonsense. If I hear of irreducible complexity, I know I'm hearing ignorance. (Nothing wrong with ignorance. A fine start point. But let's not stay there).
Darwinism simply makes too much sense, explains far too much for it all to be substantially wrong. Yes, the modern synthesis will be corrected on some matters. (We could argue all night about "punctuated equilibrium" for instance), but the agreement between biochemistry, palaeontology, genetics and molecular biology all points in one direction. This is not blind faith, even in people who know few of the details. This is acceptance of fact.
When someone then raises the argument from personal incredulity- "I don't understand how this can be, so it must be wrong"- it must be weighed against that mountain of evidence. We none of us understand. But we keep picking at it till we do.
Personally, my bugaboo is mathematics. I see much of it as sheer nonsense.
My conviction is unshakeable and sincere.
And totally wrong.
You are right; scientific sceptics do have a certain "faith" in science. This is a short cut. If you browse the forum for a while, you will notice that people keep coming up with the same questions and ideas. Some subjects, like perpetual motion, are simple nonsense. Others, like evolution , are complex , counter intuitive and hard to get your head around.
There is a danger here for the sceptic. It is easier to rely on the supposition that science is "right" , than to actually study the evidence. We do try, but it's difficult.
One can become a believer in any dogma in seconds, but keeping up with any science is very demanding, even for professional scientists. For the rest of us , it's impossible. So we are obliged to take much on faith. But we watch the patterns. I am no phycisist, but if I hear of a fixed magnet powering a car, I know I am hearing nonsense. If I hear of irreducible complexity, I know I'm hearing ignorance. (Nothing wrong with ignorance. A fine start point. But let's not stay there).
Darwinism simply makes too much sense, explains far too much for it all to be substantially wrong. Yes, the modern synthesis will be corrected on some matters. (We could argue all night about "punctuated equilibrium" for instance), but the agreement between biochemistry, palaeontology, genetics and molecular biology all points in one direction. This is not blind faith, even in people who know few of the details. This is acceptance of fact.
When someone then raises the argument from personal incredulity- "I don't understand how this can be, so it must be wrong"- it must be weighed against that mountain of evidence. We none of us understand. But we keep picking at it till we do.
Personally, my bugaboo is mathematics. I see much of it as sheer nonsense.
My conviction is unshakeable and sincere.
And totally wrong.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Whenever I hear the arguments of creationists, that evolution hasn't been proved, that there are gaps in the fossil record, that there are biological systems that are too complex for us to explain in evolutionary terms, I'm somewhat reminded of the film 12 Angry Men (stay with me here ).
A boy is on trial for murdering his father (automatic death penalty) and it appears to be an open and shut case. The jury retires to consider it's verdict and decide to take a preliminary vote. There are 11 guilty verdicts, and one not guilty. The one says that he finds it hard to cast that final vote that sends a boy to his death and just wants to talk about the evidence for a bit. So they talk, and through talking about it they discover that the witness statements contradict each other, that the witnesses appear to have told half truths or exaggerations, that evidence offered by the prosecution as rock solid and unequivocal is actually fairly shaky. One by one they change their votes to not guilty until, just before the end, one man (who seems to have personal reasons for wanting a guilty verdict) sticks resolutely to his belief that the boy is guilty. He dismisses the huge stack of evidence that shows why there should be reasonable doubt of the boys guilt. His defence of his position? "You can't prove he didn't do it!"
That's how I see evolution and creationism. Evolution has been slowly collecting evidence for a long time, it still is. That evidence, more and more, suggests that there is no need for a God, at least in terms of the origins of humanity in particular, and life in general. But the creationists say, "You don't have all the answers, there are some things that you can't explain to our satisfaction........ You can't prove that God doesn't exist!"
They're right, it can't be proved that God does not exist, ever, but if all the evidence suggests that there's no need for a God, and no reason to believe in his existence (beyond the desire for an afterlife or someone to blame/thank), then where does that leave them?
What evidence could be offered that would satisfy them? How much evidence is enough to convince them that they are wrong? That's the problem with belief in something that can't be disproved. There isn't enough evidence, there can't be, and consequently I fear that this argument will go on as long as humanity does.
(Unless of course God reveals himself to us
)
). A boy is on trial for murdering his father (automatic death penalty) and it appears to be an open and shut case. The jury retires to consider it's verdict and decide to take a preliminary vote. There are 11 guilty verdicts, and one not guilty. The one says that he finds it hard to cast that final vote that sends a boy to his death and just wants to talk about the evidence for a bit. So they talk, and through talking about it they discover that the witness statements contradict each other, that the witnesses appear to have told half truths or exaggerations, that evidence offered by the prosecution as rock solid and unequivocal is actually fairly shaky. One by one they change their votes to not guilty until, just before the end, one man (who seems to have personal reasons for wanting a guilty verdict) sticks resolutely to his belief that the boy is guilty. He dismisses the huge stack of evidence that shows why there should be reasonable doubt of the boys guilt. His defence of his position? "You can't prove he didn't do it!"
That's how I see evolution and creationism. Evolution has been slowly collecting evidence for a long time, it still is. That evidence, more and more, suggests that there is no need for a God, at least in terms of the origins of humanity in particular, and life in general. But the creationists say, "You don't have all the answers, there are some things that you can't explain to our satisfaction........ You can't prove that God doesn't exist!"
They're right, it can't be proved that God does not exist, ever, but if all the evidence suggests that there's no need for a God, and no reason to believe in his existence (beyond the desire for an afterlife or someone to blame/thank), then where does that leave them?
What evidence could be offered that would satisfy them? How much evidence is enough to convince them that they are wrong? That's the problem with belief in something that can't be disproved. There isn't enough evidence, there can't be, and consequently I fear that this argument will go on as long as humanity does.
(Unless of course God reveals himself to us
)arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Wollery,
I would be a trifle careful about confounding the issues of evolution and the existence of God. It is perfectly possible to believe in evolution and believe in God.
There is no evidence to support the existence of such a god, but at least it would not contradict known fact.
I would be a trifle careful about confounding the issues of evolution and the existence of God. It is perfectly possible to believe in evolution and believe in God.
There is no evidence to support the existence of such a god, but at least it would not contradict known fact.
The examples of "irreducible complexity" have been shown to be misleading--there are animals with similar blood chemistry but not the entire set of molecules, whose blood does indeed coagulate; mousetraps with fewer than the same number of parts described by Behe, and so forth. Particularly important is the argument that modification of an existing structure may allow it to function in a novel manner.
Check Lenski and others, 2003, The evolutionary origin of complex features: Nature 423:139-144.
Check Lenski and others, 2003, The evolutionary origin of complex features: Nature 423:139-144.
MDK, everybody in this topic is way smarter than me, but they are also a little rude. Please allow me to be the first to welcome you to the JREF forum. 
Oops. Looks like Soapy Sam beat me to it.
Anyway, I keep thinking about your irreducably complex mouse trap. I am thinking that if you build a better one, the world will beat a path to your door. To me, that means there is more than one way to skin a rat.
I am thinking the spring was not invented for use in a mouse trap, but probably something else first.
These are random thoughts that run through my head when I read what the brainiacs on here have to say. I think my random thoughts apply very well to debunking the irreducably complex argument, but I don't know how to make you hear these thoughts the way they sound in my own head.
I think the human body is the most amazing thing in the known universe. I really do. Every time I watch a biology show on TV, my mouth is hanging open in slackjawed amazement. I don't care if it is the reproductive process of a kangaroo or a detailed computer animation of how a human lung expels an irritant. It all amazes me.
I think the guy who invented the mouse trap in question saw a spring in action and thought, "Hmmmmm." I think organisms see some chemical in action and do the same, except without the thinking part.
I think a tin can tilted at a 45 degree angle with a piece of cheese tied to a string holding that can at that angle is a pretty good irreducably complex mousetrap. Lots of ways to make a mousetrap.
Lots of people trying to prove there is a God by disproving or misrepresenting science. I don't mind the attempts to disprove. I very much mind the misrepresenting. But it is like with psychics. How can you tell which ones really believe in what they are saying, and which ones are outright liars and deceivers?
Anyway. I believe in God. Thought you ought to know. I also believe there is a lot to evolution. I think there are far less flaws in our science than in our philosophies.
Oops. Looks like Soapy Sam beat me to it.
Anyway, I keep thinking about your irreducably complex mouse trap. I am thinking that if you build a better one, the world will beat a path to your door. To me, that means there is more than one way to skin a rat.
I am thinking the spring was not invented for use in a mouse trap, but probably something else first.
These are random thoughts that run through my head when I read what the brainiacs on here have to say. I think my random thoughts apply very well to debunking the irreducably complex argument, but I don't know how to make you hear these thoughts the way they sound in my own head.
I think the human body is the most amazing thing in the known universe. I really do. Every time I watch a biology show on TV, my mouth is hanging open in slackjawed amazement. I don't care if it is the reproductive process of a kangaroo or a detailed computer animation of how a human lung expels an irritant. It all amazes me.
I think the guy who invented the mouse trap in question saw a spring in action and thought, "Hmmmmm." I think organisms see some chemical in action and do the same, except without the thinking part.
I think a tin can tilted at a 45 degree angle with a piece of cheese tied to a string holding that can at that angle is a pretty good irreducably complex mousetrap. Lots of ways to make a mousetrap.
Lots of people trying to prove there is a God by disproving or misrepresenting science. I don't mind the attempts to disprove. I very much mind the misrepresenting. But it is like with psychics. How can you tell which ones really believe in what they are saying, and which ones are outright liars and deceivers?
Anyway. I believe in God. Thought you ought to know. I also believe there is a lot to evolution. I think there are far less flaws in our science than in our philosophies.
I feel I must comment more.
I visit a lot of paranormal boards on the web. The kind where people believe all kinds of weird supernatural stuff. And the one thing that irritates me the most, my chief pet peeve if you will, is the way some of the leadership in the paranormal community hijack the hard work of real scientists and distort it into something obscene.
QM is a recent favorite in the paranormal community. The things they would have you believe! That is one of the reasons I have had to read a couple QM books in the last year, just so I can call them on their crap. And I am only barely able to hold my own. Like I said, I'm not as big a brainiac as other people on here. All I have going for me is a well-functioning irreducibly complex bullcrap detector.
I am glad you came here and asked other people's opinions, MDK. That speaks a lot about you, and I am sincere in my welcome to you. Hang around. This place is a blast.
I visit a lot of paranormal boards on the web. The kind where people believe all kinds of weird supernatural stuff. And the one thing that irritates me the most, my chief pet peeve if you will, is the way some of the leadership in the paranormal community hijack the hard work of real scientists and distort it into something obscene.
QM is a recent favorite in the paranormal community. The things they would have you believe! That is one of the reasons I have had to read a couple QM books in the last year, just so I can call them on their crap. And I am only barely able to hold my own. Like I said, I'm not as big a brainiac as other people on here. All I have going for me is a well-functioning irreducibly complex bullcrap detector.
I am glad you came here and asked other people's opinions, MDK. That speaks a lot about you, and I am sincere in my welcome to you. Hang around. This place is a blast.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Evidence isn’t spun or interpreted. It either supports a theory, it doesn’t, or it’s not really evidence.
Let’s use rain for example. Two theories compete: The Zamboni Theory of Precipitation and the Meteorological Theory of Precipitation. The Zamboni Theory states that a giant ice rink is floating at 40,000 feet and when the Zamboni smoothes the surface precipitation occurs. The Meteorological Theory is the currently accepted model for why it rains and snows.
Evidence – rain occurs
Zamboni Theory – when the ice shavings fall though warm air near the surface they turn into rain.
Meteorological Theory – water vapor coalesces until it reaches sufficient weight to fall as rain.
Both theories are supported by rain.
Evidence – snow occurs
Zamboni Theory – the ice shavings don’t pass through warm air and don’t melt.
Meteorological Theory – water vapor crystallizes and forms snowflakes that fall.
Both theories supported by snow (but Meteorological supported further by crystalline structure of snowflakes.)
Evidence – clouds
Zamboni Theory – clouds are irrelevant, they only hide the Zamboni.
Meteorological Theory – clouds are formed by water molecules forming water vapor that may then form, rain, snow or ice depending atmospheric temperatures at cloud and surface levels.
Meteorological Theory supported by could.
Etc.
What we find again and again is that the predictions made by evolutionary theory for why we find the diversity of life on earth and in the fossil record are supported by the evidence that we find.
This Essay shows the prediction/observation process of the scientific method in detail showing why the evidences supporting macro-evolution are just that.
As far as the missing link goes, take a look at the attached photos of skulls. "A" is a Chimpanzee, "N" is an anotomically modern human. Which skull would you call the missing link or say we needed on more link and why?
Let’s use rain for example. Two theories compete: The Zamboni Theory of Precipitation and the Meteorological Theory of Precipitation. The Zamboni Theory states that a giant ice rink is floating at 40,000 feet and when the Zamboni smoothes the surface precipitation occurs. The Meteorological Theory is the currently accepted model for why it rains and snows.
Evidence – rain occurs
Zamboni Theory – when the ice shavings fall though warm air near the surface they turn into rain.
Meteorological Theory – water vapor coalesces until it reaches sufficient weight to fall as rain.
Both theories are supported by rain.
Evidence – snow occurs
Zamboni Theory – the ice shavings don’t pass through warm air and don’t melt.
Meteorological Theory – water vapor crystallizes and forms snowflakes that fall.
Both theories supported by snow (but Meteorological supported further by crystalline structure of snowflakes.)
Evidence – clouds
Zamboni Theory – clouds are irrelevant, they only hide the Zamboni.
Meteorological Theory – clouds are formed by water molecules forming water vapor that may then form, rain, snow or ice depending atmospheric temperatures at cloud and surface levels.
Meteorological Theory supported by could.
Etc.
What we find again and again is that the predictions made by evolutionary theory for why we find the diversity of life on earth and in the fossil record are supported by the evidence that we find.
This Essay shows the prediction/observation process of the scientific method in detail showing why the evidences supporting macro-evolution are just that.
As far as the missing link goes, take a look at the attached photos of skulls. "A" is a Chimpanzee, "N" is an anotomically modern human. Which skull would you call the missing link or say we needed on more link and why?
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Still waiting for you clarification of what you meant by 'missing link' and why you think it is missing.MDK said:
Oh and one question since I can see your comment about waving my hand to make evidence go away
Goodnight folks
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
It's been almost 24 hours since my post so... bump!