Unicorns and the ToE

[Febble]

Also Febble ... I don't really want to do science by Youtube video.

I'm not asking you to do science by Youtube video. I'm asking you to watch a Youtube video that explains how someone else did some science.

It's not long. You can do it. I dare you.

[Perrin]

Febble ...

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

Um... that was my point.

What was crystally clear to everyone - except Dave.

Now, who's the one again who was caught in a net? Problem is, Dave does not even understand that he shoot himself in the foot, he still thinks he won the argument. Oh, the power of cognitive dissonance...

[Zadok001]

Febble ... Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

Um... that was my point.

What was crystally clear to everyone - except Dave.

Now, who's the one again who was caught in a net? Problem is, Dave does not even understand that he shoot himself in the foot, he still thinks he won the argument. Oh, the power of cognitive dissonance...

This has gone well beyond "Shot himself in the foot." The man has blown off the lower half of his body, and is saying "Ah-HA! You've fallen for my clever trap!" It takes some serious fucking crazy mojo to get to this point... If I hadn't known Dave for so damn long, I'd be calling Poe right around here.

[ericmurphy]

Now, if only we could get Dave to focus on what is, after all, the topic of this thread, the one Dave started: the difference between objective and subjective phylogenies, and why they matter.

Remember centaurs, Dave? You believed, for reasons best known to yourself, you had a consensus that centaurs wouldn't present a problem for evolutionary theory. Well, they do, Dave, and here's why. Remember this tree:



There's nowhere on this tree where centaurs can go. In fact, there's no conceivable objective tree where centaurs could go, because half of a centaur groups with hominids, and the other half groups with equids. There is no single organism that has six limbs, four of which have single digits and two of which have five digits. There's no grouping that exists that centaurs could fit in.

Therefore, since common descent requires a phylogenetic tree that follows Markov processes, and no tree that has a centaur on it can fulfill that requirement, common descent cannot explain a centaur.

Without common descent, the theory of evolution fails, since common descent is the central tenet of evolutionary theory.

Now, your current claim is that the consensus phylogenetic tree is "somewhat arbitrary." If that's true, you should be able to construct an alternative phylogeny that still respects the same homologies that the consensus tree does. If it does not respect those homologies, then it's not a valid, objective tree, and depends on your ordering of characters. In other words, it's not a tree based on objective criteria that are independent of what you think are important organizational characters.

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ...

The conclusion is not necessarily true, given the premises.

I never said it was necessarily true. Just possibly true. I realize that it may be shown to be false and I welcome such attempts. It's just that I have heard of many such attempts and they wind up being just one more science myth.

So do you agree now that my logic is good? Do you also now agree that the way to show that my conclusion is not right is by demonstrating that machines can build themselves?

If you still say no, then why do you infer design for manmade machines, but not for biological ones?

Are you still operating under the false idea that biological machines are fundamentally different than artificial machines because they reproduce? You need to rid yourself of than erroneous notion. I think the Science article I posted should make it clear that the line between biological and non-biological machines will continue to be blurred and will eventually disappear and with it ... Your objection.

[Black5]

Also Febble ... I don't really want to do science by Youtube video.

No you prefer to discuss it out of your ass.

[Pappy Jack]

Also Febble ... I don't really want to do science by Youtube video.

I don't think she's suggesting that you 'do' science by You Tube, Dave; I think she's suggesting that if you watch the video you may learn something that will enhance your understanding.

[Dave Hawkins]

It's not long. You can do it. I dare you.

It's not that I'm afraid ... It's just that I don't like wasting time on wild goose chases.

[JonF]

So Febble ... Do you now agree that my logic wasn't bad after all? I think we both agree on the logic part now that you understand me ... We just disagree that the analog to "legless reptiles that can move" has been discovered.

No, Febble understands you, but you don't understand Febble ... and you don't understand basic logic.

Her syllogism is valid, and is exactly the same as your purported "logic", and demolishes your claim to have proved that all machines require intelligence (whatever "intelligence" is and whatever "machines" are).

I, for one, don't know what you mean by "intelligence" or "machine". I suspect that's true of most of us, but one is enough. So we don't all know what we're talking about here.

Definitions, please.

[jerr]

It's not long. You can do it. I dare you.

It's not that I'm afraid ... It's just that I don't like wasting time on wild goose chases.

Seriously, Dave, Febble has obviously spent quite a bit of time on her posts, and you can't even spare a mouse click? If I were her, I would find that insulting.

[ericmurphy]

Febble ...

The conclusion is not necessarily true, given the premises.

I never said it was necessarily true. Just possibly true.

Then why are you wasting your time, Dave? Everyone accepts that it's possibly true that God created life. Why do you keep arguing something that's uncontroversial? If that's your argument, who cares? If, conversely, your argument is that "all human-built machines have a designer, then all machines have designer," the flaws in that reasoning have already been pointed out.

I realize that it may be shown to be false and I welcome such attempts. It's just that I have heard of many such attempts and they wind up being just one more science myth.

You've got it exactly backwards. No one has ever demonstrated the impossibility of evolving biological structures. That it is impossible is what's the myth.

So do you agree now that my logic is good? Do you also now agree that the way to show that my conclusion is not right is by demonstrating that machines can build themselves?

No, Dave, stop trying to pretend everyone's agreeing with you. Your logic is wrong; that's what Febble just said. Your conclusion might be right, but your logic is definitely wrong.

If you still say no, then why do you infer design for manmade machines, but not for biological ones?

We don't "infer" design for manmade machines. We don't need to. We know they're man-made.

Are you still operating under the false idea that biological machines are fundamentally different than artificial machines because they reproduce? You need to rid yourself of than erroneous notion.

We will when you demonstrate it's false. So far you haven't even come close to demonstrating it's false.

I think the Science article I posted should make it clear that the line between biological and non-biological machines will continue to be blurred and will eventually disappear and with it ... Your objection.

No, it will disappear when non-biological machines actually can be made to reproduce. Once they start reproducing, and there are ever any imperfect reproductions, then they will necessarily start evolving.

Your problem, Dave, is not understanding that reproduction is the principal difference between organisms and artifacts. Once that difference disappears, i.e., once artifacts start reproducing, it's the act of reproduction that makes the distinction disappear.

[Pappy Jack]

Febble ... do you agree now that my logic is good? Do you also now agree that the way to show that my conclusion is not right is by demonstrating that machines can build themselves?

If you still say no, then why do you infer design for manmade machines, but not for biological ones?

Are you still operating under the false idea that biological machines are fundamentally different than artificial machines because they reproduce? You need to rid yourself of than erroneous notion. I think the Science article I posted should make it clear that the line between biological and non-biological machines will continue to be blurred and will eventually disappear and with it ... Your objection.

Dave, repetition does not make something true by the fact of that repetition. No one is going to agree with your argument because you refuse to define what you mean by 'machines' and 'intelligence'.

As it stands, there is probably agreement here that evidence exists that man-made machines are the result of action by an intelligent (defininition, please) designer; there is no evidence whatsoever that what you (and the references you quote) refer to as biological machines are the result of action by an intelligent (defininition, please) designer. The fact that both phrases, man-made machines and biological machines, make use of the word machine in what seems to you to be an equivalent way in no way, shape or form means that the two uses are actually equivalent in admitting or implying an intelligent (defininition, please) designer in the biological process. Until you get this through your skull you are never going to understand how deeply flawed your argument is.

[Serafina Pekkala]

David, your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premises, so it is useless to determine if living things are "designed". Your syllogism doesnt show that they are, and it doesnt show that they probably are. So what good is it?

[Dlx2]

It's not long. You can do it. I dare you.

It's not that I'm afraid ... It's just that I don't like wasting time on wild goose chases.

Dave, you've avoided any sort of actual reading on this subject. If you were to ask me, I'd suggest that you sit down and read the entirety of Hennig's Phylogenetic Systematics and perhaps some additional readings, such as Page's Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach. I might subject you to G.G. Simpson's Principles of Animal Taxonomy as well.

I've read a lot of the Creationist "Baraminology" references. They're utter shit, and they stand up neither to scrutiny nor to any investigation of the actual evidence. I see better scientific research in medieval bestiaries. You, when presented with even the most simple readings, avoid even giving those readings a glancing-over. And then, when presented with a youtube video which summarizes some of the very basics, you refuse to watch it. We've spent hours upon hours upon hours trying to present high-level information to you, and instead of even acknowledging our efforts by at least trying to understand where we're coming from, you put your tail between your legs and crawl under the table whenever we make a new effort to make our position understandable.

Face it, Dave. You're scared that something will convince you, and as such, you are avoiding the question. What's the worse that'll happen, you'll give up Christianity and go on to live a nice, happy life with the belief that holy crap, people actually have the ability to be good for the sake of being good? Sounds terrifying, Dave.

[Black5]

It's not long. You can do it. I dare you.

It's not that I'm afraid ... It's just that I don't like wasting time on wild goose chases.

Seriously, Dave, Febble has obviously spent quite a bit of time on her posts, and you can't even spare a mouse click? If I were her, I would find that insulting.

Agreed. Given the time Febble has spent trying to discuss this with you it would only be courteous to watch the video BEFORE claiming it was a wild goose chase. Anything else is insulting and dare I say it dishonest.

[Pappy Jack]

I, for one, don't know what you mean by "intelligence" or "machine". I suspect that's true of most of us, but one is enough. So we don't all know what we're talking about here.

Definitions, please.

You're right; none of us knows what Dave means by 'machine' and 'intelligence' because he refuses to define the terms (though we can make a good guess). At least half-a-dozen people have asked and Dave has hand-waved all requests away (or just ignored them).

[Serafina Pekkala]

Seriously, David, your syllogism has no value. We have a testable explanation for the evolution of living things that doesnt require any intelligence. Your syllogism doesnt change that at all. If you have another explanation you have to tell us what it is and why its better. You havent done that yet.

Sari

[JonF]

Febble ...

The conclusion is not necessarily true, given the premises.

I never said it was necessarily true. Just possibly true. I realize that it may be shown to be false and I welcome such attempts. It's just that I have heard of many such attempts and they wind up being just one more science myth.

So do you agree now that my logic is good?

No, she and others explicitly said that your logic is bad and invalid, and demonstrated exactly why your logic is bad and invalid.

Do you also now agree that the way to show that my conclusion is not right is by demonstrating that machines can build themselves?

Irrelevant, Davie-poo. You are attempting to show that your conclusion is valid. You have failed to do so.

Of course, several people have demonstrated that intelligence is not required to build machines ... using particular definitions of "intelligence" and "machines". Until you've come up with your definitions there's nbo way to assess the validity of your claims.

[Pappy Jack]

... It's just that I don't like wasting time on wild goose chases.

Hydropants, anyone?

Umm, it's heading to past 10pm here in the French Pyrenees, so I may be signing off for the night. A very happy New Year to all who have yet to greet it and to those who may already have seen it pass. Let's hope that 2008 turns into a more peaceful year than 2007 has been (though I hae ma doots). At least boards like this demonstrate that there can be disagreement and dispute without anything worse than verbal bloodshed and violence!

[Zadok001]

Febble ...

The conclusion is not necessarily true, given the premises.

I never said it was necessarily true. Just possibly true.

Did anyone ever dispute "possibly true?" We're disputing the part where you jump from "Possibly true" to "Inerrant Word of God".

So do you agree now that my logic is good?

BAD DAVE! NO COOKIE!

No, your logic is not fucking good. Your logic is a fucking MESS, and Febble demonstrated that beyond ALL doubt. Here's the deal. "Good" logic is valid. Go look up valid. I'll wait. Ah, but I know how lazy you are, so here's the damn definition anyway:

"In logic, the form of an argument is valid precisely if it cannot lead from true premises to a false conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true."

So, for your logic to be acceptable, it needs to be VALID. Febble has demonstrated that your logic in INVALID, in that the structure of your argument, when applied to reptiles, leads to a false conclusion. Is it becoming clear to you now? Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Your argument is invalid in a very basic, fundamental way.

Do you also now agree that the way to show that my conclusion is not right is by demonstrating that machines can build themselves?

Go read what I just said again. Your argument is invalid. The conclusion does not follow. So, without the argument leading up to your conclusion, we are left with your CLAIM. A statement, without logic or evidence to support it. It is *NOT* a valid conclusion. So what you meant to say is: "Do you also now agree that the way to show that my conclusion unsubstantiated guess is not right is by demonstrating that machines can build themselves?"

That statement, I agree with. Now, two problems - First, it's an unsubstantiated guess, so why should I bother trying to show it's not right?

Second, if I did want to bother showing that it's not right, I can do so by (once again) pointing at snakes. A machine that produces imperfect replicas of itself. Voila, your unsubstantiated guess is shown to be incorrect.

... why do you infer design for manmade machines, but not for biological ones?

Because there is no known mechanism for man-made machines to arise naturally. Hence, "man-made". There *IS* a known mechanism for biological entities to arise naturally.

Are you still operating under the false idea that biological machines are fundamentally different than artificial machines because they reproduce?

You mean the fundamental difference between the two? Yes, I would say I'm operating under the impression that things which are different are, in fact, different. If man-made machines could reproduce imperfectly, they too would evolve.

You need to rid yourself of than erroneous notion. I think the Science article I posted should make it clear that the line between biological and non-biological machines will continue to be blurred and will eventually disappear and with it ... Your objection.

Unfortunately, your brain has already disappeared...

[Febble]

Febble ...

The conclusion is not necessarily true, given the premises.

I never said it was necessarily true. Just possibly true. I realize that it may be shown to be false and I welcome such attempts. It's just that I have heard of many such attempts and they wind up being just one more science myth.

So do you agree now that my logic is good?

No, your logic was faulty. It did not lead to a conclusion that necessarily followed from your premise. If it only lead to conclusion that was NOT necessarily true, as you now concede, then it wasn't logic at all, it was just a bit of speculation. Nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes. But it boils down to: let's see now, cells look a bit like man-made machines. Man-made machines are made by intelligent creatures. Perhaps cells are made by intelligent creatures.

The trouble is, that you hit a problem at the first fence, because cells are actually made by other cells. As I pointed out, they have parents. Not only that, but their parents are similar to them - but not exactly like them. This is not true, except in a metaphorical sense, of most man-made machines. So that immediately flags up a different possibility: that cells are the way they are because of something to with replication-with-modification. And, as I said, Darwin's key insight was to note that if something is replicated with modification, modifications that increase replication rate will rapidly become more plentiful than modifications that decrease it, stop it, do nothing to it, or increase it but to a lesser extent.

And that is the rival mechanism. It works - we can show that mathematically (as you will see if you watch that video); we can observe it working in the lab; we can observe it working in the field; we can see evidence that it has worked over vast time scales in the past in the fossil record. And we actually know a fair bit about the actual mechanisms - the actual chemical reaction - by which it is accomplished.

Do you also now agree that the way to show that my conclusion is not right is by demonstrating that machines can build themselves?

Yup. And it's been done. Watch. That. Video.

If you still say no, then why do you infer design for manmade machines, but not for biological ones?

I say yes. I've been saying yes all thread. That's why I keep telling you to Watch. That. Video.

Are you still operating under the false idea that biological machines are fundamentally different than artificial machines because they reproduce?

Well, they are different in origin, clearly. I was constructed according to a series of chemical reactions arising from the property of a molecule that was constructed from two molecules that once belonged to each of my parents. That's patently not true of most man-made machines. However, already we are starting to make use of self-replicating and evolving virtual machines. RBH makes them for a living, and a tidy living for him and his clients and fellow investors they make too.

You need to rid yourself of than erroneous notion. I think the Science article I posted should make it clear that the line between biological and non-biological machines will continue to be blurred and will eventually disappear and with it ... Your objection.

Not at all. You are still mired in faulty logic. If we make self-replicating machines (as we already have, in the virtual arena, and are beginning to do IRL as well) all that will show is we are capable of designing machines that can then evolve by themselves. It won't show that we were designed. Why would it?

If you watch that video (you know the one I mean, right?) you will see (spoiler warning) that this guy wrote a computer program that evolved extremely accurate clocks, from a simple process of replication with modification plus natural selection. What is even more fascinating was watching the generations of clocks, because what it showed was not only that clocks ALWAYS evolved, but that there would be long periods of stasis (equilbrium) punctuated by rapid periods of evolution. So if you sampled, randomly, from clocks down the lineage, you would see very few transitional forms (although they most certainly existed).

Now the guy that wrote the program is an intelligent guy (which is why you should watch it). But he was smart enough to figure out how to get the clock to design itself by a process that was fundamentally extremely stupid. It was clever enough to design a very accurate clock. But it took many generations to do it, and carried on producing non-optimal clocks for long periods until a better clock came along.

Now, you could perfectly well argue that God was smart enough to invent the algorithm. But actually, you don't have to be very smart to invent it. As I said it is very simple:

• if it works, replicate (with modification) else discard.

You don't need to be very god-like to think it up. Even beaches can do it, without being told. But it is smart enough, given enough time, to invent highly complex machines.

Try watching the video.

Cheers

Lizzie

[VoxRat]

I just voted this thread "excellent" for its clear demonstration of the vacuity of creationism on the critical issue of nested hierarchies

[Febble]

It's not long. You can do it. I dare you.

It's not that I'm afraid ... It's just that I don't like wasting time on wild goose chases.

And I don't especially like wasting time on explaining things to you over and over again, when you don't bother to read to the end of my posts, and you won't watch a short video that would save us all a lot of bother.

If you find an obvious flaw in the video, you could also save yourself time by pointing it out. And if you don't, you will have learned something.

So it won't be a waste of time, either way.

But given your attitude, I'm beginning to be a little resentful of the time I wasted watching YOUR little video about how watch parts can't evolve into watches. The least you could do to make it up to me is to watch a video about how they can.

[Zadok001]

If you watch that video (you know the one I mean, right?) you will see (spoiler warning) that this guy wrote a computer program that evolved extremely accurate clocks, from a simple process of replication with modification plus natural selection. What is even more fascinating was watching the generations of clocks, because what it showed was not only that clocks ALWAYS evolved, but that there would be long periods of stasis (equilbrium) punctuated by rapid periods of evolution. So if you sampled, randomly, from clocks down the lineage, you would see very few transitional forms (although they most certainly existed).

I have some quibbles with that paragraph. The video is quite clear in this regard, it selected only for effective time-keeping. Additional parts were tagged on outside the time-keeping device itself, and those were not selected for or against. However, eventually random combination of those parts resulted in clock hands, rather than just pendulums.

This *LOOKS* like punctuated equilibrium on his graph, but his graph isn't telling the whole story. When his graph swaps from pendulums to proto clocks, that's not actually where "transitional" fossils would be found. At that stage, you have proto clock fossils and pendulum fossils intermingled. PRIOR to that transitional PERIOD, you would actually find transitional FOSSILS - That is, pendulums with "extra bits" that eventually lead to proto clocks.

To rephrase, what you are terming "rapid periods of evolution" are actually periods of population transition - We're getting more proto clocks, and fewer pendulums, but the rate of evolution has not actually changed. Variation from one generation to the next retains a similar rate of mutation. Transitionals would be found with equal regularity in the periods preceding and following the transitional period. The only interesting thing about the transitional period is that you'd find BOTH in the same time frame.

[Febble]

If you watch that video (you know the one I mean, right?) you will see (spoiler warning) that this guy wrote a computer program that evolved extremely accurate clocks, from a simple process of replication with modification plus natural selection. What is even more fascinating was watching the generations of clocks, because what it showed was not only that clocks ALWAYS evolved, but that there would be long periods of stasis (equilbrium) punctuated by rapid periods of evolution. So if you sampled, randomly, from clocks down the lineage, you would see very few transitional forms (although they most certainly existed).

I have some quibbles with that paragraph. The video is quite clear in this regard, it selected only for effective time-keeping. Additional parts were tagged on outside the time-keeping device itself, and those were not selected for or against. However, eventually random combination of those parts resulted in clock hands, rather than just pendulums.

This *LOOKS* like punctuated equilibrium on his graph, but his graph isn't telling the whole story. When his graph swaps from pendulums to proto clocks, that's not actually where "transitional" fossils would be found. At that stage, you have proto clock fossils and pendulum fossils intermingled. PRIOR to that transitional PERIOD, you would actually find transitional FOSSILS - That is, pendulums with "extra bits" that eventually lead to proto clocks.

To rephrase, what you are terming "rapid periods of evolution" are actually periods of population transition - We're getting more proto clocks, and fewer pendulums, but the rate of evolution has not actually changed. Variation from one generation to the next retains a similar rate of mutation. Transitionals would be found with equal regularity in the periods preceding and following the transitional period. The only interesting thing about the transitional period is that you'd find BOTH in the same time frame.

Good point. There is only one fitness dimension. But are you sure you are correct? I was assuming that when something important happened (like a new gear attaching to the pendulum), all kinds of new clocks would become possible, each slightly better than another (with different numbers of teeth, for instance) - then stabilise at an local optimum until some other major development occurred. So you'd get lots of "fossils" with similar numbers of teeth, but relatively few from the period where the teeth numbers were evolving like crazy.

I'd like to see his script.