Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The preception of love, fear, anger etc are all the experiences that your teaching thebrain. You're also teaching it logic as a child. If the brain learns that when things are bad go crazy, then that's just what it'll do as an adult. You get out what you put in - like any computer program.
For the purpose of what, exactly? Natural selection use ...[text shortened]... ism, yet man has constructed an entirely artificial system to which only he must adapt. Why?[/b]

Point one; natural selection only selects the best adapted organisms (to the environment in which they exist) - it does not promote changes, except at the population level.

Point two; the brain is an adaptation to the universe in which humanity operates. if we have created society etc then we have done what other organisms (chimpanzees for example) have also done, only to a more advanced degree.

Sorry Freaky, I didn't fully understand your second point, perhaps you could clarify?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Point one; natural selection only selects the best adapted organisms (to the environment in which they exist) - it does not promote changes, except at the population level.

Point two; the brain is an adaptation to the universe in which humanity operates. if we have created society etc then we have done what other organisms (chimpanzees for example ...[text shortened]... egree.

Sorry Freaky, I didn't fully understand your second point, perhaps you could clarify?

Point one; natural selection only selects the best adapted organisms (to the environment in which they exist) - it does not promote changes, except at the population level.[

I hope this is not a huge change of subject, but have you heard of irreducible complexity?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Point one; natural selection only selects the best adapted organisms (to the environment in which they exist) - it does not promote changes, except at the population level.[

I hope this is not a huge change of subject, but have you heard of irreducible complexity?[/b]

There is no evidence to suggest that any complexity is indeed irreducible, that argument is merely argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Especially when we are talking about biology.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
There is no evidence to suggest that any complexity is indeed irreducible, that argument is merely argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Especially when we are talking about biology.

No evidence??! Perhaps the ignorance is yours, not mine...

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Your off-hand rejection is interesting at best, arrogant at worst.

Originally posted by Halitose
No evidence??! Perhaps the ignorance is yours, not mine...

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Your off-hand rejection is interesting at best, arrogant at worst.

Yes Hal, I have indeed heard of (and refuted successfully) irreducible complexity many times. You choose the topic and I'll debate it which you, whether it is the evolution of camoflage, the eye or whatever you choose.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes Hal, I have indeed heard of (and refuted successfully) irreducible complexity many times. You choose the topic and I'll debate it which you, whether it is the evolution of camoflage, the eye or whatever you choose.

Some other time. I'm currently dishing 'one liners' -- no time for protracted debates.

Originally posted by Halitose
Some other time. I'm currently dishing 'one liners' -- no time for protracted debates.

One liners? Well in that case a predator style-ee 'any time'....

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
especially since sociopath rehabilitation has about a 2% success rate.

That must explain your hair, then.

Originally posted by David C
That must explain your hair, then.

My hair is irreducibly complex.

Originally posted by Halitose
No evidence??! Perhaps the ignorance is yours, not mine...

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Your off-hand rejection is interesting at best, arrogant at worst.

argumentum ad ignorantiam is " the assertion that if something is currently inexplicable to some people, then it did not (or could not) happen". I wasn't saying you were ignorant, although you might be, I was just pointing out the logical fallacy in the concept. I have looked at your "evidence" and have previously looked at "evidence" of irreducible complexity, and have never found it at all convincing. Debate Louis or me if you want, but I'm not just spewwing one liners (it was 2 lines 😛).

And from Wikipedia: "Futhermore, Irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The main concerns with the concept are that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, amounting to a God of the gaps argument."

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow


And from Wikipedia: "As such irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, amounting to a God of the gaps argument."

Not to jump in an un-winable debate, but I always found it curious whenever phrases such as 'the majority of' are employed. It assumes there is some unnamed agency in possession of a closed set of 'something,' has profiled or surveyed that closed set, and the answers received reveal said majority. Dubious at best.

It's been awhile since looking at the red herring argument, but I seem to recall Behe giving a specific example of an irreducibly complex organism. Mind you, the impetus for doing so came from his 'camp' scouring Chuck's treatise on evolution for chinks in the armor, which is more akin to paint-by-numbers science than the (more pure, more desirable) research-driven science. Both sides are more guilty of the former than either are prepared to admit, unfortunately.

With respect to a lack of evidence to support the concept, none on either side ever answered this area of doubt in Chuck's work, so to ask to review it now shouldn't be dismissed in such a cavalier manner. Had the issue been raised in the past (outside of Chuck's writings), addressed and put to bed, that 'majority' would quickly point to the case studies in order to answer the question. This hasn't been done to date, therefore the charge remains.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Point one; natural selection only selects the best adapted organisms (to the environment in which they exist) - it does not promote changes, except at the population level.[

I hope this is not a huge change of subject, but have you heard of irreducible complexity?[/b]

I find it strange that you completely change the subject when I ask you to justify your "free agent" philosophy.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I find it strange that you completely change the subject when I ask you to justify your "free agent" philosophy.

I'm finding less and less time to engage in protracted debates - and the entailed research. My apologies.