The above was in response to my asking for examples of:

2. There are functions/systems/structures in biology that have no benefit (except by chance) until they are formed.

Thanks for the examples. Sexual reproduction certainly has antecedents that provide "benefit". One only has to look at hermaphroditic worms, fish, frogs, etc. to see the 'implementation' of haploid gametes prior to full-blown sexual reproduction between mating pairs. And many of these hermaphroditic species are also capable of sexual reproduction with a mate. Also, there are species of lizards that reproduce either clonally or via sexual reproduction. We can even go all the way back to those little volvox cell colonies which reproduce either clonally or via haploid gametes, depending on the presence of a signaling molecular pheromone.

So there is fairly convincing evidence of a pathway from horizontal gene transfer to same-parent haploid gametes to two-parent haploid gametes. Sexual reproduction happened stepwise and incrementally, with each step providing some amount of evolutionary 'advantage' (though they also introduce some disadvantages too).

But, or course, for an argument to be valid, the premises must be stated, not implied. When you assume that others make the same assumptions as you, you turn your arguments into gibberish. But yours are already anyway.
Incorrect.
Also incorrect.

Since both of your premises are wrong, your conclusion is invalid.

The sum total of your response was little more than either "am not" or "am too." Of course, there was also the part where you launched that ad hom against one of my philosophy teachers. Please educate yourself before you embarrass yourself so. Obviously you know little of evolutionary biology, genetics, or logic.

__________________
From The Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11, negociated under Washington, passed unanimously by the senate, and signed by Adams -- "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

Perhaps Freedom would find this guys thoughts more closely parallel to his own.

createvolutionism

Ad hominem.

As you have pointed out to me many times, what one can visualize is irrelevant.

It can't at any given point there is only selection for existing functions. Therefore there can be no systematic progression to a new function because a new function does not give benefit. Now you repeated this back to me so I know you know. It sounds like you think you have a rebuttal what is it?

Claiming something is impossible because it is unlikely is the inverse of an appeal to odds.

Note I have been very careful to say practically impossible and very unlikely.

Now claiming that an appeal to odds is unlikely is an argument against that appeal it is not an appeal itself.

For instance if someone said something was true because someone unreliable told them, that would be an appeal authority.

Now how would you respond to the absurd claim that you pointing out that that person is unreliable is making an appeal to authority yourself?

What do you mean by 'fully' they only need to be functional.

I invite you to present them.


If you mean claim God created life and it's advancement. It's hard to be ashamed of something that you haven't done.

I believe that nothing is ultimately inexplicable which implies I believe there is something driving these changes.

If I knew I would tell you. Rational evolution is already proven as far as I am concerned so it's not going to be 'replaced' unless there is vast conspiracy about the evidence.

I am afraid I couldn't find an argument.

You were the one who didn't seem to be capable of picking them up from the pages upon pages of lengthy responses and statements.

Ad hominem

Argument by dismissal

Argument by dismissal

Actually that's not the word your looking for, it starts with U. Now you being such an enterprising logic student I am sure you can come up with it.

That is true. The cause of this is the fact that the sum total of your post being "You are" or "you are not"

Too illustrate your complete hypocrisy I think you will commit the same fallacy in the next line (yes I read it already).
Tada!

I believe I was quite clear. You stated that sexual reproduction was an example of your second premise:

2. There are functions/systems/structures in biology that have no benefit (except by chance) until they are formed.

The evolutionary steps leading up to dimorphic haploid sexual reproduction DO have evolutionary advantages. While sexual reproduction was being "formed" (a rather misleading word), evolutionary benefits existed.

So either your example of sexual reproduction is not an example, or your second premise is wrong.


BTW, your most recent post attributes quotes to me that I did not make. Please correct if you can.

Correction: There are steps which you find conceptually to be a middle ground between simple copies to full sexual reproduction.

When I said sexual reproduction I meant operating an organism off of two sets of DNA, not to imply that it must come from two different individuals.

The formation of that system would be the event that caused an organism to have this ability.

A simple duplication of existing chromosomes would not be sufficient explanation because there is no chance in hell that such a duplication would itself cause the cell/organism to start keeping the sets separate to produce gametes (a concept only applicable to haploid lifeforms).
Sorry about that, fixed it.

Again, you display your ignorance of logic. If you make an argument, even if you are claiming that you are only summarizing, your argument isn't valid if you don't present the premises. You cannot assume that anyone else makes the same assumptions as you.

Moreover, my claim was that your were missing a (i.e., one) premise. If you understood logic you would have known that a conclusion from a previous syllogism can be used as a premise in a following syllogism. The problem with your "argument" is that you first stated two premises and then drew a conclusion. You then drew a second conclusion without the required second premise. When I pointed that out, you offered two assumptions, neither of which followed from your first argument. That means that your two arguments are unrelated, or that you wish to use both conclusions as premises in a third syllogism. But the problem is that before there can be a logical argument, there must be an area of agreement. Since I disagree with all four of your premises, it is up to you to offer arguments from premises about which we both agree. That is how logic works. Since I disagree with your premises, before we can argue you must offer logical arguments that support all four of your premises.
No, sweetie. It was a comment about your assumptions. It isn't about you.
Again a demonstration of your ignorance of logic. I made no argument. I rejected your premise because I know that it is wrong. In order to bring this up to the level of a logical argument, you need to offer a valid argument (with two premises, neither of which is an assumption, or such assumptions with which I agree) that results in your premise as a conclusion.
Again, sweetie, I do not accept your premise. That now makes four of your premises with which I do not agree. As a result, in order for you to actually present a logical argument, you need to come up with two additional premises with which I agree from which follows each or your premises with which I disagree.

Really, if you are going to use such nifty terms (without understanding) as "ad hominem" and "argument by dismissal," it would be a good idea to learn what you are talking about. So, at what university did you study philosophy and take a course in logic? I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.
Actually "invalid" is exactly the word I was looking for. Sadly, your understanding of logic is so lacking that you don't even understand what an invalid syllogism is. An invalid syllogism is one from which the conclusion does not follow because the premises are incorrectly stated, besides being wrong. Yours are not only incorrect, but invalid because your premises are invalid. Even worse, your premises are not correctly stated so that your conclusion follows logically. Please, please make an effort to educate yourself.
Yet more of the "am too", "am not" horse pucky that represents your argument.
What is your point? In the next line I only pointed out (once more) your ignorance of evolutionary biology, genetics, and logic. How am I wrong? Where and when did you actually take a course in logic? Where and when did you actually study evolutionary biology? Where and when did you actually study genetics?

Come on! Show us that you aren't arguing from ignorance.

__________________
From The Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11, negociated under Washington, passed unanimously by the senate, and signed by Adams -- "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

I am usually very tolerant of ad homenim attacks and general fallacy, but you aren't improving. This is the last post containing 'again you show your ignorance' and missing an argument that I will respond to.

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

I have.

Then do not bother to contradict what you have no intention of arguing against.

I point out that I can simply contradict anything you state and it certainly would take less brain power.

If you have rejected every one of my five premises (just speaking about the most recent summary as you are incapable of following the full argument).

Then you don't know enough about biology to argue this subject matter, if you expect me to educate you up to the level where you can argue with me I would be willing to give you brief explanations but that's it.

Speaking of which the only possible reason you would be mentioning logic courses is to attempt a appeal to authority, which is an _______ argument, which is always fallacious when used to prove that the conclusion of a s____ d_______ argument is wrong.

The conclusion must follow from the premises.

So tell me how does one incorrectly state a premise?

I can only laugh at that. You have come full circle. You have ignored or dismissed my arguments. You have claimed that I never really had arguments. You have attacked my knowledge and ability to form arguments. Now you point at my response and say "look his whole argument is just saying that he is educated, and his statements are correct".

It is funny, but a serious question (if you can handle it): Have you ever won an argument like this?

Seriously, it is an excellently executed smear attack (I didn't even know you could do that on forms), but you have literally managed to make it appear to a reader that this is some sort of textual shouting match, thereby blurring the entire thread and reducing the impact of all the arguments made here.

Anyway though your goal is clearly not to win any arguments, you aren't even making arguments.

If you don't think a series of statements which contain the opponent debater as the subject; which are meant to conclude the debater’s argument is wrong, is an Ad Hominem I accuse you of lying about your formal education on logic.

I am not interested in arguing about whether I am ignorant of biology or logic or not. I have made sound arguments and if you cannot defeat them that will speak for itself on this matter.
You will not know, and I don't care where you took yours.

"As a formal student of logic I know that arguments by those who have not studied logic are unsound for that reason" is the perhaps one of the oxymoronic statements that can be made.

Again you will not know. I refuse to proceed on your fallacious premise even in the least.

Ah the classic switch from the individual to plural, 'we', 'us'. As someone who has been arguing online for a while this shift is a sign that the 'opponent' is imagining a room filled with incredulous spectators against one fool.

Everything about your posts of late has been reeking of emotionally tainted power politics which belongs more on a game show than a debate forum.

You have from the start tried to make to launch a massive ad hominem argument. Yes it is that, you have tried to use me as the fulcrum for your point.

Now if you are trying to argue about my ignorance, my logic skills you may do so.

Admit now that such an argument would not be one about evolution.

I find examples are a good way to teach so I will teach you. Above I said I would not respond. I take it back. I will use an ad hominem attack every time you do. I will do the same fallacy as you every time you use one.

The difference will be that I will not cloak them in derisive paragraphs I will simply state them.

This will have the effect of 'unblurring' the proceedings for readers and will act as a key for them to understand what you are trying to do and the nature of your statements.

I have to say Freedom, you did start this by dismissing arguments as ad hom or argument by dismissal. You dismissed my statement,

This is not ad hom as I am attacking your view and not you persanally. Obviously this remark deserves some response, but I got none. This is an important statement about your first premise that you need to defend against. By shrugging it off, you seem to have no defense.

Then you said,

I never said this. What one can speculate on is in fact relevant especially when defending against someone who says, for example, "its impossible for that pyramid to be erected by man." I say, "No, they could have done it this way with thousands of slaves."

Now, without actually building a pyramid to show you, or moving a single stone, I have showed that is not impossible.

Then you said this,

This is obviously false. Do you really stand by this?

I could go on and on. I think you really need to form coherent paragraphs with a statement and then something to back it up. So far, all you ever do is pick phrases out of context and either dismiss them with some logical fallacy argument or take their meaning as something different than was intended. This is why you're arguments always turn so sloppy. No one can remember what you were originally saying because you don't write intelligibly.

BTW, you really need to rework your four statements. I know they have been nitpicked, but the first two are straight up incorrect and the second two are dependent on them.


But natural selection is not the only mechanism responsible for change in a genome. That simple, assertion needs reworking.

All changes in genome, whether for improvement in function or novel function, are by chance. No changes have benefit until after they occur.

This statement is just flat out wrong. I am sitting here trying to reword it in a way that makes some sort of sense, but even if I accept your first two statements, this one simply does not follow. This is because neither of your first two statements rule out a chance mutation leading to novel function. This is where you need to focus.

Yeah, but all changes are "pure chance" whether they lead to functional improvement or novel function. Again, you have to show that there is an impassable gorge or a gap between any existing function and any new function. In other words, your argument boils down to IC.

BTW, you might want to stay away from logic as logic will never prove IC. As you said before, you have to be careful with the term impossible and logic deals in absolutes, not probables. Your better off sticking to probabilities, even though you have yet to correctly deduce the odds of anything.

Attacking a 'view' without reason is called argument by dismissal, however this phrase "...you're view on evolution is too narrow to grasp the big picture. " could only be an ad hominem. Don't get me wrong I don't see Ad Hominem as necessarily an insult simply any statement intended to counter an argument which uses a person (Any of their attributes included) as reason.

Joe says cats are nice.

Bill says Joe is wrong because he is such a kind person he can't be trusted to think anything is mean.

Bob says Joe is wrong because he is an XXXXX whose ignorance tops all records.

Jill says Joe is wrong because his view is narrow minded and he doesn't understand cats.

All three of these arguments are Ad Hominem fallacies.

Someone may well not understand something and may well be unable to speak intelligently about something, but that in itself does not make any argument they think up wrong. Saying so is another fallacy: Disproof By Fallacy.

So even things that seem relevant can be fallacies, one must understand that one cannot argue against the person or their beliefs, or their knowledge. Only their argument itself is permissible and just because one may mention that an argument is wrong does not mean one argued against it, thereby sanctioning anything else one says in the same post.

For instance "As mentioned above, you leave out many mechanisms that result in a changes in a genome."

That seems relevant and it would be in a string of other premises, but to prove it's relevance you would have to name other mechanisms, show (by argument) that I omitted them as factors and that this omission effects my argument.

You did not so it was not unreasonable to attach this as a unsupported support of the other statement you made: "you're view on evolution is too narrow to grasp the big picture."

Now that is attacking the view not the argument, attacking the argument would conclude things about the other argument.

This statement as well as "You're attempting to distill evolution down so that it will have to conform to the constraints you impose on it." would be a description or explanation as to why I advanced an unsound argument.

Since you did not show that to me, however; it still seemed as if you were attempting to counter my argument with statements about me.

Therefore it was and is an Ad Hominem.

Ah but you have every time you pointed out that my lack of imagination for how something evolved is not proof that it couldn't have. You have accused me many times of making an argument from incredulity which is precisely that; saying that since I cannot visualize something it cannot happen.

The inverse must be true, saying something must have happened because you can visualize it is fallacy.

I of course had this response because that's the only point I saw in what I was responding to.

I said whether something is functioning or not is a boolean value and you said not all functions are the same, while this is obvious you seemed to imply that you could visualize intermediates between non-functioning and functioning system.

Since I know that is impossible all I had to do to expose the lack of support was point out that visualization is not support.

Then you said this,



Yes, although the wording may be misunderstood. In all honesty I have stated these same arguments in a much more precise and thorough manner. I can't be blamed for getting a little tired of having to type the same thing over again because people have an aversion to reading (or remembering) more than a page back.

"there can be no systematic progression to a new function because a new function does not give benefit before it is formed which would encompass the entire time period in which the systematic progression would occur."

..........
If you can show they are incorrect you would have taken away two premises which are absolutely essential to my argument, you would win.

I did not say it was, so there is not assertion to rework.


That is true.

Do you wish me to explain why that is not contradictory to my premise? (or you could reread or read for the first time what I have said on guided mutation)

I don't see how.

maybe if the premises were more brutally stated?

NO SELECTION WITHOUT BENEFIT

NO BENEFIT

THEREFORE NO SELECTION

You may have not noticed the 'the process' part or the last statement which addresses pure chance.

Pure chance which just happens to be natural selection + random mutation - natural selection.

natural selection + random mutation - natural selection. != natural selection + random mutation.

If a function appears because of pure chance it is not pure chance plus filtering that causes it to appear, it is just pure chance.

I can understand your confusion because in normal language:

As an analogy if someone said Cooking + Following a recipe cannot produce a meal which is not in the recipe book, but Cooking alone can; it would seem a little silly because one can cook and follow a recipe at the same time.

but if you say Cooking + Following a recipe - the process by which cooking is conducted according to a recipe book cannot produce a meal that is not in the recipe book, but Cooking by randomly trying combinations of frying, broiling, and seasoning food can. It would be much more intelligible.

It is the same in my premises, natural selection & random mutation as a process of selecting changes in organisms is not identical to random mutation alone.

For instance what if I said random mutation + natural selection can produce a horribly crippled species which is doomed to death in minutes?

Well that would be madness, natural selection implies such a random mutation would be gone quickly before it even spreads to an entire species.

Yet pure chance random mutation can certainly screw individuals up and if there was no natural selection it could spread.

If one was merely an expanded version of the other they would both be capable of the same things but one would be capable of more. That is not the case, one is capable of certain things and the other any thing at all, one is a predictable process the other is not.

No, every mutation is pure chance. Not any change.

If a system improved itself by say 10 evolutionary units in one mutation it would be totally unselected, total luck.

If it did it in 200 mutations AND there were intermediate benefits it was not.

Novel function CANNOT have intermediate benefits before it exists, meaning it is always totally unselected, total luck.

What you are basically saying is that everything is totally unselected, total luck but that isn't true.

Large changes can be built off of a series of small changes.

If there was a law that said no possible improvement can be selected for until it reaches a certain level of improvement it would be in the same boat as novelty but there isn't, not for all improvements.

If I gave a challenge to two people that they had to see what you can do to make a really good bike by changing it randomly, but here's the catch I say you have to throw out any bike that doesn't ride.

Now I give one guy a squeaky old bike that barely works,
To the other I give a rock.

The first starts with an array of random liquids sprayed onto the bike. A lot of unimproved bikes (covered with water, milk, and such) a couple bikes were melted by strong acids, but he came across oil which helped the chains and open bearings, then he stumbled upon paint.

Given enough time he could turn that bike into a pristine randonneur, the key to that is he gets to select if there was an improvement.

Every single change was random but the total effect was not.

What about the guy with the rock? Well he tried a lot more things than the first person. Some times he even got ridiculously lucky, once he actually managed to get a crankset and bolted it to the rock.

I guess you see where this is going though right? It didn't ride, none of the rock modifications rode.

Why not? Isn't it the same thing, it's not like either planned any of the changes they made right? Yep.

They were all perfectly random and only selected afterward?
Yes.

Whats the difference? It's the rule that you have to throw it out if it doesn't ride.

Let's add another law and run it again. This time you have to throw out the experiment if it's not a pristine randonneur.

Now; even though many of the changes the first made were improvements he still had to lose them because it wasn't a pristine randonneur.

Not much changes with the other.

The end result is neither are able to systematically improve their experiments.

The only way they are getting a pristine randonneur is if that happens to be the entire change (the first makes all necessary changes and the second gets a randonneur and puts the rock on a bike rack).

In conclusion the only way for every change to be pure luck is in the absence of natural selection.

To defeat the absurd notion that functions regularly leap around for no reason?

No, the burden of proof here is definitely on you. When one says something can't happen except by pure chance it is for the opposition to show the non-random process that causes it.

If you aren't claiming that a non-random process causes it but that it's so likely it doesn't require one I have stated a cogent argument about the actual chances of co-option.

I gasped at that! Of course I know that. In fact the first thing I said about evolution on this form was "the only sound argument against evolution I have heard is that of IC" or something very similar.

Why?
Um not exactly, look up the difference between a deductive and inductive argument particularly the nature of their conclusions.

I have given good indication of the order of magnitude of the odds, the balls in your court now if you want to strengthen your appeal to odds.

If the environment that an organism lives in changes, a benefit can quickly become a disadvantage.

But he used CAPS, that means he MUST be RIGHT.

__________________
‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

QED

(I have to put something else here because I'm being told my commentary is too short)

__________________
Live by the foma that make you brave & kind & healthy & happy.
The Books of Bokonon, First Book, Verse 5
*****

If love is outlawed, only outlaws will love.
-Quinn Inc., a subsidiary of What New Hell Is This? Industries (WNHIT?)
*****

As a rule, what is out of sight disturbs men's minds more seriously than what they see.
-Julius Caesar

That is true. Is this meant to be relevant?

Oh trebor, you have already fulfilled your short dismissive comment quota for this thread Sorry for making you work overtime.

Work overtime. I am sorry, but perhaps if you actually showed you understood anything at all, and DID NOT RELY ON CAPS TO GIVE INCORRECT INFORMATION, you would be respected more.

For example, the reason your response was wrong is that
selection works on two different factors.. if a mutation is a benefit, it will be selected for, if it is detrimental, it will be selected against. However, if it is neutral, it might establish itself through genetic drift and random chance. Some of these mutations can become either beneficial later on, or detrimental later on, if there is either an environmental change, or if there is another mutation that works with the previous mutation.

That SHOWS YOUR CAPS STATEMENT TO BE INCORRECT. OH MY GOSH, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT.



Some recessives can give a survival benefit as a single incidence, but cause strong problems if it is doubled up.


As for 'Irreducibly complex', there are two seperate paths that a system that can be identified as 'irreducibly complex' (using the Behe definition for I.C.) can evolve naturally. One is the co-opting of a structure that already exists for another purpose, or scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is no longer needed and gets removed later. The first incidence is how the bacterial flagellum evolved.

__________________
‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov