Self-Defence Mechanisms in Nature.

[inocente]

Your still avoiding YOUR original premise 'That is that humans are an accident , that there is no purpose behind their existence. The rules YOU set destroy the fundamentals of Christianity.

The OP question was “how do naturalists explain the existence of self-defense mechanisms in biological organisms”, and it was answered in post #2. There are no means by which evolution can act intelligently to achieve goals, it’s a completely dumb process. All species have survival traits for the very simple reason that those which didn’t are no longer around, having failed to survive.

Whether you interpret that as undermining your religion is up to you, but it’s best not to go there as discussion of evolution is banned.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

The point of Rossum’s post, of course, is that chance mutations, selected for by The Process Which Must Not Be Named, play a massive role in the formation and development of life - including defence mechanisms.

Wrong. Apparently you haven’t heard of DNA repair mechanism.

However, you just seized upon the 50% figure, quickly erected a straw man and proceeded to beat it to death while the actual argument stood nearby looking on with bemusement.

Using a distorted premises to support any argument automatically renders the argument mute, unless one provides another correct premise, which in this case is absent.

Whether 50% is the right figure or not, is irrelevant. It quite clearly wasn’t the point that Rossum was making. So please address the actual point, which is the demonstrable existence of chance mutations and how they are selected for (or not). If you dispute that chance mutations exist, please substantiate. If you dispute that chance mutations are selected for by TPWMNBN, please substantiate.

Please read about DNA repair mechanism and how deductive argument works.

Please quote where did I ever refute the existence of change mutations. Please read up on DNA repair mechanism and its relationship with chance mutations.

You note, in post 23, the difference between “pure chance” (out of n possible outcomes, each is equally likely to occur) and “directed chance” (some outcomes are more likely because of environmental factors etc.). I do not believe that Rossum is advocating the former. But accepting the latter does not mean that the least likely outcomes never occur. It can still correctly be called “chance” in the context of the discussion.

Pure chance means pure chances, directed chance means directed chance. Science has no room for ambiguity.

You seem to be very keen on “scientific facts,” so I’m unsure why you’re going against the overwhelming concensus of scientific opinion on this subject. What do you know that all the evolutionary biologists don’t?

Perverting scientific facts is fundamentally wrong. Scientific integrity is fundamental to the pursuit of truth. Scientific opinion remains an opinion, not a fact.

BTW, the reason I haven’t joined in this thread in another capacity, is that Rossum is doing a great job - far better than I could do, since I have little patience with the sort of specious arguments that are becoming increasingly common from apologists on this forum. However, your decision to pursue the minutae of a percentage figure instead of responding to the real argument, prompted me to put fingers to keyboard.

It is mostly baseless accusations instead of cogent arguments presented so far.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

For your information, I am male, not female.

Oops. Sorry there. I associated your user name with emmy rossum, the one in phantom of the opera and that disaster film with jake gyllenhaal. My apologies.

 

[wanstronian]

Wrong. Apparently you haven’t heard of DNA repair mechanism.

Either that, or you’re mis-using the phenomenen to dismiss the idea that chance mutations can persist. Hmmm, now which could it be…?

Using a distorted premises to support any argument automatically renders the argument mute, unless one provides another correct premise, which in this case is absent.

However, Rossum’s argument did not depend on this premise, it merely used it as an illustrative example. Whether it’s 50% or 20% is irrelevant, the point is that it happens. You’re being terribly disingenuous here. See my previous comment about specious arguments from apologists…

Please read about DNA repair mechanism and how deductive argument works.

Please get off your high horse and engage with the actual argument. What’s next, are you going to dismiss Rossum’s argument based on his spelling or use of grammar?

Please quote where did I ever refute the existence of change mutations. Please read up on DNA repair mechanism and its relationship with chance mutations.

You didn’t explicitly state it, but you strongly implied that chance mutations cannot result in the evolution of defence mechanisms. Did I get that wrong?

Pure chance means pure chances, directed chance means directed chance. Science has no room for ambiguity.

Indeed. That is my point. You recognise the difference, but argue as if nobody else does.

Perverting scientific facts is fundamentally wrong. Scientific integrity is fundamental to the pursuit of truth. Scientific opinion remains an opinion, not a fact.

Exactly, and you are welcome to your opinion. And Rossum and I are entitled to disagree with it. As are the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field.

It is mostly baseless accusations instead of cogent arguments presented so far.

You doubtless wish that were true, but unfortunately for your credibility, your conclusions are incoherent and unsound due to flawed premises.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Either that, or you’re mis-using the phenomenen to dismiss the idea that chance mutations can persist. Hmmm, now which could it be…?

However, Rossum’s argument did not depend on this premise, it merely used it as an illustrative example. Whether it’s 50% or 20% is irrelevant, the point is that it happens. You’re being terribly disingenuous here. See my previous comment about specious arguments from apologists…

Please get off your high horse and engage with the actual argument. What’s next, are you going to dismiss Rossum’s argument based on his spelling or use of grammar?

You didn’t explicitly state it, but you strongly implied that chance mutations cannot result in the evolution of defence mechanisms. Did I get that wrong?

Indeed. That is my point. You recognise the difference, but argue as if nobody else does.

Exactly, and you are welcome to your opinion. And Rossum and I are entitled to disagree with it. As are the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field.

You doubtless wish that were true, but unfortunately for your credibility, your conclusions are incoherent and unsound due to flawed premises.

Ad hominem.

 

[johnnyjones]

The OP question was “how do naturalists explain the existence of self-defense mechanisms in biological organisms”, and it was answered in post #2. There are no means by which evolution can act intelligently to achieve goals, it’s a completely dumb process. All species have survival traits for the very simple reason that those which didn’t are no longer around, having failed to survive.

Whether you interpret that as undermining your religion is up to you, but it’s best not to go there as discussion of evolution is banned.

“Evolution” is your word. I see you left off the scripture verses in my quote. The topic has not been solved. Is there reason by which God “acts intelligently to achieve goals?” Self defense mechanisms are not purposeless, and that is how the discussion arose.

 

[inocente]

“Evolution” is your word. I see you left off the scripture verses in my quote. The topic has not been solved. Is there reason by which God “acts intelligently to achieve goals?” Self defense mechanisms are not purposeless, and that is how the discussion arose.

That’s off-topic. The OP doesn’t say how the discussion arose or why God acts to achieve anything, it asks “how do Naturalists explain the existence of self-defence mechanisms in biological organisms”, and that question was answered in post #2, they explain it with evolution.

And I quoted your post in it’s entirety, you didn’t refer to any scripture there, whatcha talking about?

 

[inocente]

That’s off-topic. The OP doesn’t say how the discussion arose or why God acts to achieve anything, it asks “how do Naturalists explain the existence of self-defence mechanisms in biological organisms”, and that question was answered in post #2, they explain it with evolution.

And I quoted your post in it’s entirety, you didn’t refer to any scripture there, whatcha talking about?

 

[johnnyjones]

That’s off-topic. The OP doesn’t say how the discussion arose or why God acts to achieve anything, it asks “how do Naturalists explain the existence of self-defence mechanisms in biological organisms”, and that question was answered in post #2, they explain it with evolution.

And I quoted your post in it’s entirety, you didn’t refer to any scripture there, whatcha talking about?

Your right, I was looking at the wrong post in which I had scripture. I got into a discussion about purpose with another poster.

 

[wanstronian]

Ad hominem.

Really? Where, exactly? Which statement?

 

[JDaniel]

Are you missing the point on purpose, or do you genuinely not get it?

Wanstonian:

I’ll ask you the same question, however, I’ll clarify it for you to make it more intelligible: Do you know what “chance” means? Or, are you using it like a good number of under-educated, pseudo-scientists, to refer to immanent and normal occurrences that simply do not happen quite as often as those that aren’t called “random?” Do you have any idea how many “chance” events have had to be postulated for the satisfactions of tenuous “theories?” (Not to mention their accompanying ridiculous arguments.) And some herein will tell you only theists do this!

Chance = two (or more) caused events intersecting each other’s paths, so to speak. Two men, now grown, that were born in Two Egg, Florida, but have been living on opposite coasts, run into each other after thirty years, in a small motel on the outskirts of Wilkes-Barre, PA, one checking in while the other is checking out, after having to land there, in two separate planes, because of a very rare weather incident. This depicts "chance.’

Randomness = homogeneity. Thoroughly mix 600 red beans and 400 black beans, and every scoop of 100 beans will statistically produce 60% red beans and 40% black beans with respectable predictability. This is not chance. As an ordered collection, randomness is open to scientific analysis; chance, as such, is not. Randomness involves the mathematical; but chance is physical. Statistically, randomness is governed by or involves equal chances for each item. Chance, on the other hand, is a real disorder; whereas randomness is a disorder only for our logic. To accentuate its difference from randomness, chance can interfere with a random collection and thus introduce a real, physical disorder; e.g., when the sampling process is interrupted and the one counting the beans leaves the room temporarily, birds or other animals could enter the room and eat an appreciable quantity of the beans, thus producing a chance disturbance of the random aggregate. Chance therefore can affect a random connection; this shows a considerable difference between chance and randomness. Randomness is a type of order which consists precisely in indifference.

Randomness (as usurped by scientism) = an inordinate number of “chance” events (especially occurring in a relatively short window of time for such a plethora of these kinds of events to have occured.)

‘Randomness’ and ‘chance’ are two words that are tossed around and interchanged with so little concern for their proper meanings and intent for what, in order to win an argument, or postulate a terrible theory? We need to find another word to use in place of it. Something that says, Hey, we’re going to commandeer this perfectly good word - that you’ve been using as a pointer to something more precise, to mean something different - and use it the way we want to use for those purposes which we deem worthy, but we can no longer use “randomness.”

God bless, and good to hear from you!
jd

 

[inocente]

Your right, I was looking at the wrong post in which I had scripture. I got into a discussion about purpose with another poster.

Oh good, at least my mind hasn’t completed packed up.

 

[JDaniel]

Natural selection is about genetic preservation. It explains only that a feature is preserved due to its effectiveness. It doesn’t in and of itself explain the existence of self-defence mechanisms in nature. The point is, something exists in nature that acts specifically for the preservation of an organism. That is goal-direction.

RR:

Unfortunately, your premise is way too subtle.

God bless,
jd

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Wanstonian:

I’ll ask you the same question, however, I’ll clarify it for you to make it more intelligible: Do you know what “chance” means? Or, are you using it like a good number of under-educated, pseudo-scientists, to refer to immanent and normal occurrences that simply do not happen quite as often as those that aren’t called “random?” Do you have any idea how many “chance” events have had to be postulated for the satisfactions of tenuous “theories?” (Not to mention their accompanying ridiculous arguments.) And some herein will tell you only theists do this!

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstonian:

I’ll ask you the same question, however, I’ll clarify it for you to make it more intelligible: Do you know what “chance” means? Or, are you using it like a good number of under-educated, pseudo-scientists, to refer to immanent and normal occurrences that simply do not happen quite as often as those that aren’t called “random?” Do you have any idea how many “chance” events have had to be postulated for the satisfactions of tenuous “theories?” (Not to mention their accompanying ridiculous arguments.) And some herein will tell you only theists do this!

Chance = two (or more) caused events intersecting each other’s paths, so to speak. Two men, now grown, that were born in Two Egg, Florida, but have been living on opposite coasts, run into each other after thirty years, in a small motel on the outskirts of Wilkes-Barre, PA, one checking in while the other is checking out, after having to land there, in two separate planes, because of a very rare weather incident. This depicts "chance.’

Randomness = homogeneity. Thoroughly mix 600 red beans and 400 black beans, and every scoop of 100 beans will statistically produce 60% red beans and 40% black beans with respectable predictability. This is not chance. As an ordered collection, randomness is open to scientific analysis; chance, as such, is not. Randomness involves the mathematical; but chance is physical. Statistically, randomness is governed by or involves equal chances for each item. Chance, on the other hand, is a real disorder; whereas randomness is a disorder only for our logic. To accentuate its difference from randomness, chance can interfere with a random collection and thus introduce a real, physical disorder; e.g., when the sampling process is interrupted and the one counting the beans leaves the room temporarily, birds or other animals could enter the room and eat an appreciable quantity of the beans, thus producing a chance disturbance of the random aggregate. Chance therefore can affect a random connection; this shows a considerable difference between chance and randomness. Randomness is a type of order which consists precisely in indifference.

Randomness (as usurped by scientism) = an inordinate number of “chance” events (especially occurring in a relatively short window of time for such a plethora of these kinds of events to have occured.)

‘Randomness’ and ‘chance’ are two words that are tossed around and interchanged with so little concern for their proper meanings and intent for what, in order to win an argument, or postulate a terrible theory? We need to find another word to use in place of it. Something that says, Hey, we’re going to commandeer this perfectly good word - that you’ve been using as a pointer to something more precise, to mean something different - and use it the way we want to use for those purposes which we deem worthy, but we can no longer use “randomness.”

God bless, and good to hear from you!
jd

Thanks for the clarification. Not sure whether you meant to appear patronising, or whether it was just coincidence. Nevertheless, I do understand what “chance” is, thanks.

However, what I was referring to was your post that advocated (tongue-in-cheek) getting rid of any creature that you didn’t like very much, because “all things are essentially purposeless accidents – which means that they have no intrinsic or extrinsic reasons for being…”

Your post, parody though it seemed, implies that you believe that things co-exist for some immutable reason beyond our understanding - that someone or something intended it to be that way. The reality, of course, is that there is absolutely no evidence at all to support such a hypothesis. In fact, the evidence supports the development of all things due to an innate desire to survive - no more, no less.

If we got rid of honey bees, spider, tree frogs or whatever, clearly the ecosystem would change - maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, depending on your point of view and which organism you happen to be. But to imply that things are the way they are, and interact the way the do, because of some divine intent, is just dumb. There is a far more plausible, far more evidenced, scientific theory that provides an infinitely better explanation.

 

[wanstronian]

I think we have your measure now - chucking out facile emoticons in support of condescending posts. Very grown up, well done. You seem to have stopped actually arguing your point now - why is this?

Still waiting for you to clarify where I committed an ad hom, by the way.

 

[wanstronian]

Do you have any idea how many “chance” events have had to be postulated for the satisfactions of tenuous “theories?” (Not to mention their accompanying ridiculous arguments.)

It’s very easy to point to a series of unlikely events and confidently state that their compound probability makes the resultant scientific theory irredeemably unlikely. However, intellectual honesty should compel you to compare this probability to the probability of the alternative hypothesis - that an all-powerful, timeless, supernatural deity was involved. So at the very least you would have to calculate the probability of the existence of this deity. Problem is, this calculation resolves to “zero” due to a total absence of evidence, so suddenly these “tenuous theories” are infinitely more plausible!

We need to find another word to use in place of it. Something that says, Hey, we’re going to commandeer this perfectly good word - that you’ve been using as a pointer to something more precise, to mean something different

This made me laugh - immediately reminded me of the “it’s only a theory” trope! Not that I’m accusing you of making that basic error, it’s just an observation.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s very easy to point to a series of unlikely events and confidently state that their compound probability makes the resultant scientific theory irredeemably unlikely. However, intellectual honesty should compel you to compare this probability to the probability of the alternative hypothesis - that an all-powerful, timeless, supernatural deity was involved.

Intellectual honesty should compel you to compare the probability of **irrational, **purposeless particles **fortuitously **creating rational, purposeful persons…

So at the very least you would have to calculate the probability of the existence of this deity. Problem is, this calculation resolves to “zero” due to a total absence of evidence, so suddenly these “tenuous theories” are infinitely more plausible!

The probability of the rational Creator is incalculably greater than **irrational **creative particles because the success of science demonstrates **the power of reason **whereas **irrational particles have been shown to produce precisely nothing except irrational **permutations of atomic particles.

We are directly aware of the creative power of our rational mind in stark contrast to the zero evidence for the creative power of **irrational **particles…

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I think we have your measure now - chucking out facile emoticons in support of condescending posts. Very grown up, well done. You seem to have stopped actually arguing your point now - why is this?

Still waiting for you to clarify where I committed an ad hom, by the way.

Well, of my work commitment, family commitment, parish commitment and among all the intellectual contributions from other CAF forumers that enrich my learning, your remarks do not really warrant the merits of my time to respond to. It is not my job to deal with your academic laziness. Here are some elementary resources to understand the basis of logic, reason, analysis, deduction, induction, analogy and dialectic, in case Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, and the others are not suitable to your reading level yet.

But I do appreciate your contribution. Your remarks reflect your inner psyche which is full of hatred interfering with logical mental operation, lacking clarity and consistency of thoughts. That reminds me of who I was before my baptism and makes me more appreciative of where I am now.

 

[inocente]

Well, of my work commitment, family commitment, parish commitment and among all the intellectual contributions from other CAF forumers that enrich my learning, your remarks do not really warrant the merits of my time to respond to. It is not my job to deal with your academic laziness. Here are some elementary resources to understand the basis of logic, reason, analysis, deduction, induction, analogy and dialectic, in case Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, and the others are not suitable to your reading level yet.

But I do appreciate your contribution. Your remarks reflect your inner psyche which is full of hatred interfering with logical mental operation, lacking clarity and consistency of thoughts. That reminds me of who I was before my baptism and makes me more appreciative of where I am now.

That’s the very definition of ad hominem and is also self-satisfied, uncharitable, patronizing, condescending and hogwash.

This is an apologetics forum, and that kind of apologetics may boost your ego but is a terrible advertisement for your church.

Note the stickies:

• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.

I ask you to apologize to the poster.