Jump to content


Photo

Can Irreducible Complexity Result From Small Changes?

irreducible complexity

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 January 2018 - 08:44 AM

Given that you don't appear to have read the material in question, is it possible that you have been fooled to believe in Behe's correctness because of your preconceptions?

the real question is whether the cell has undergone "evolution" at all and if so, to what extent.
there is the very real question about how animal phyla arrived, and viruses apparently show no signs of common ancestry.
in my opinion, transposons and epigenetics totally destroys the idea of "gradual accumulation" and along with it, natural selection.

#22 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 22 January 2018 - 12:49 PM

I invite Norman and Goku to read more carefully.

 

Goku; I didn't mentioned my sodoku score or evolution in this thread, Popoi brought it up as an ad-hominem attack. My defence is that showing evidence you have an ability key to reasoning and arguing things out (deduction) is a correct thing to do, rather than just claiming abilities. Providing "101" quiz scores, is evidence, as I passed critical thinking tests which actually were not "easy" level. So why argue against the evidence? If you were good at evaluating arguments your response would have been this; "Popoi that was a personal attack, mike didn't mention his score, you're bringing in an issue so as to muddy the waters".

 

In the past you have, on multiple occasions, brought up sudoku and online logic quizzes as evidence of your ability to form good arguments against evolution. It is somewhat off-topic and a bit of a red herring, but I still see it as fair game. This is a largely informal forum after all; you bring it up every now and then and still hold to that view.

 

No one is arguing against the evidence; we are simply saying that being good at those things does not necessarily mean your arguments against evolution are sound. What those tests demonstrate is that you have a good textbook understanding of logical fallacies - i.e. can give the textbook definitions and can spot them in textbook-type scenarios, and sudoku-type puzzles demonstrate that you are fairly intelligent in that mode of intelligence (I think intelligence is best measured in multiple dimensions).

 

At best you can think of those tests as a proxy for the lower bound required to formulate good arguments. If you can't do well on those types of puzzles and quizzes that may reflect on a fundamental problem in one's thinking, but once you are past a certain point other factors like specific knowledge and personal bias become much more salient than how well you do at logic puzzles.

 

Popoi claimed that deduction wasn't essential in making someone a good arguer...

 

But Popoi didn't make any such statement explicitly or implicitly; only that it does not follow that doing well on those logic tests means that the person will make good arguments dealing with evolution.

 

In this example, you and Goku don't seem to realise where the form is wrong which is actually what I was dicussing not the example. It is that the middle term is not distributed in the conclusion, meaning it breaks the modus ponen and tollens, rules. It has nothing to do with the example, the mistake will still be there no matter what the example, so it's not only important to know the difference between apples and oranges, you also have to know that the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, has been committed because the form is wrong. LOL!

 

The most common type of that fallacy is this;

 

All Ps are Xs.

All Ms are Xs.

Ergo all Ps are Ms.

 

It isn't only fallacious if it is wrong, it is specifically fallacious because you break the ponen/tollens directional rules, by concluding something about two antecedents.

 

This will take some explaining. The ponen rule is always true, you can always qualify the secondary premise, as being true in the consequent, if it is true in the antecedent, as long as the consequent always follows and the second premise always qualifies. This means there is a LEFT TO RIGHT DIRECTION to the structure of the syllogism, no matter how lengthy the premise is. By example think up an example of the longest possible ponen, this makes it easier to understand the directional rules to the structure of a syllogism;

 

If you are a man,(extreme atecedent) then you are a human,

If you are human then you are a mammal

If you are a mammal then you are a vertebrate.

If you are a vertebrate then you are a eukaryotic organism.(extreme consequent)

Bob is a man, therefore Bob is a eukaryotic organism.

 

Can you see the left-to-right direction? So then only one error (and you thought it simple) is to say for example, "Bob is a vertebrate therefore he is a man", because that breaks the rule of left-to-right inference. For example Bob might be a rodent. However, if all of the conditional implications in isolation, are 100% true, and the form of the syllogism 100% correct structure, then you can always conclude from the one example, that if they qualify as the extreme antecedent then they qualify as the extreme consequent.

 

 

But no, that certainly isn't the only thing you can deduce as to how something qualifies as valid, because you can also use the modus tollens rule of negation in it's one-directional, right-to-left, capacity, to also conclude that "if Bob is not a eukaryotic organism, then Bob is not a man".

 

But you can never say this;

 

"if you are a man you're human

If you're a woman you're human

Therefore if you're a man you're a woman"

 

Because you have broken both rules of formal validity, it has nothing to do with women not being men. Lol! If you think it only is a matter of simplicity, then you haven't studied conditional implications, the soundness of syllogisms and the rules of formal validity.

 

So if you think it simple, here are a few more errors deduction helps to spot;

 

If P then Y.

Y, ergo P. (fallacious; Affirmation of the consequent)

 

If P then Y.

Not P, ergo not Y. (fallacious; denial of the antecedent)

 

X is a P

Y is a P

ergo X is Y or the same as Y. (undistributed middle term)

 

All X are P

No D are X

Ergo no D are P (Illicit process of the major term)

 

All A are B

All A are X

Ergo all X are Z (illicit process of the minor term)

 

We all understand that you are talking about the form and you could have chosen any number of examples from fruit to shapes to parts of speech. We all understand that two elements within a single set are two different things.

 

What I was getting at is that your lecture about proper form using fruit is ironically close to the problem of using logic tests as a means to say your arguments against evolution are good. To use the form in your apples/oranges example ("sudoku" being a placeholder for the various logic puzzles and tests you bring up):

 

'Sudoku' requires good logic skills

Making good arguments against evolution requires good logic skills

Therefore being good at 'sudoku' and being able to make good arguments against evolution are the same thing

 

While we can add nuance by saying things like 'being good at sudoku increases the likelihood of good arguments against evolution' and so forth, it does not follow. The only exception would be something like a low 'sudoku' score suggesting that the person doesn't have a good grasp of the basics or is not mentally up to the challenge. Again, once you pass the lower-bound threshold, which I would say everyone here would pass, other factors become much more important than your raw 'sudoku' score. 



#23 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 22 January 2018 - 08:02 PM

I invite Norman and Goku to read more carefully.

 

Goku; I didn't mentioned my sodoku score or evolution in this thread, Popoi brought it up as an ad-hominem attack. My defence is that showing evidence you have an ability key to reasoning and arguing things out (deduction) is a correct thing to do, rather than just claiming abilities. Providing "101" quiz scores, is evidence, as I passed critical thinking tests which actually were not "easy" level. So why argue against the evidence? If you were good at evaluating arguments your response would have been this; "Popoi that was a personal attack, mike didn't mention his score, you're bringing in an issue so as to muddy the waters". 

 

Norman, in context the example I gave wasn't meant to be difficult, it was meant to show that we use deduction in order to find such errors, by showing that the form, (the structure of the syllogism) is not formally valid. Popoi claimed that deduction wasn't essential in making someone a good arguer, so I only had to show that we used deduction to spot whether arguments are good or bad. That is the context of what I said, the context wasn't an attempt to show off, by producing the most "deep" logic I could find, telling me that you have taken my comment out of context, which a good reasoner/arguer, wouldn't do.

 

Both you and Goku have shown you aren't good reasoners here;

 

In this example, you and Goku don't seem to realise where the form is wrong which is actually what I was dicussing not the example. It is that the middle term is not distributed in the conclusion, meaning it breaks the modus ponen and tollens, rules. It has nothing to do with the example, the mistake will still be there no matter what the example, so it's not only important to know the difference between apples and oranges, you also have to know that the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, has been committed because the form is wrong. LOL!

 

The most common type of that fallacy is this;

 

All Ps are Xs.

All Ms are Xs.

Ergo all Ps are Ms.

 

It isn't only fallacious if it is wrong, it is specifically fallacious because you break the ponen/tollens directional rules, by concluding something about two antecedents.

 

This will take some explaining. The ponen rule is always true, you can always qualify the secondary premise, as being true in the consequent, if it is true in the antecedent, as long as the consequent always follows and the second premise always qualifies. This means there is a LEFT TO RIGHT DIRECTION to the structure of the syllogism, no matter how lengthy the premise is. By example think up an example of the longest possible ponen, this makes it easier to understand the directional rules to the structure of a syllogism;

 

If you are a man,(extreme atecedent) then you are a human,

If you are human then you are a mammal

If you are a mammal then you are a vertebrate.

If you are a vertebrate then you are a eukaryotic organism.(extreme consequent)

Bob is a man, therefore Bob is a eukaryotic organism.

 

Can you see the left-to-right direction? So then only one error (and you thought it simple) is to say for example, "Bob is a vertebrate therefore he is a man", because that breaks the rule of left-to-right inference. For example Bob might be a rodent. However, if all of the conditional implications in isolation, are 100% true, and the form of the syllogism 100% correct structure, then you can always conclude from the one example, that if they qualify as the extreme antecedent then they qualify as the extreme consequent.

 

 

But no, that certainly isn't the only thing you can deduce as to how something qualifies as valid, because you can also use the modus tollens rule of negation in it's one-directional, right-to-left, capacity, to also conclude that "if Bob is not a eukaryotic organism, then Bob is not a man".

 

But you can never say this;

 

"if you are a man you're human

If you're a woman you're human

Therefore if you're a man you're a woman"

 

Because you have broken both rules of formal validity, it has nothing to do with women not being men. Lol! If you think it only is a matter of simplicity, then you haven't studied conditional implications, the soundness of syllogisms and the rules of formal validity.

 

So if you think it simple, here are a few more errors deduction helps to spot;

 

If P then Y.

Y, ergo P. (fallacious; Affirmation of the consequent)

 

If P then Y.

Not P, ergo not Y. (fallacious; denial of the antecedent)

 

X is a P

Y is a P

ergo X is Y or the same as Y. (undistributed middle term)

 

All X are P

No D are X

Ergo no D are P (Illicit process of the major term)

 

All A are B

All A are X

Ergo all X are Z (illicit process of the minor term)

 

 

 

 

Norman: Wow, man....this is some deep, deep logic stuff.  Give me a little bit, I need to really think this one through

 

I wasn't trying to provided "deep logic stuff" anyway. If someone asks you for something to eat as they're a nad hungry, and you give them a banana, would it make sense if I said, "Oh you are a Master chef, there Norman, you make the professionals look silly!"

 

That would be absurd, for you would have totally missed the ENTIRE point.

 

Giving an easy example of a fallacy doesn't mean anything I am afraid, because in real life most fallacies are not stated explicitly, you have to spot subtle fallacies in form, where they are hidden behind semantics, evasion, equivocation, rhetoric and sophistry.

 

Yes Norm, even one simple deduction can bring down an entire case, like wen you provided a whole bunch of scientifically technical data for a dating process which wasn't even used to date Mt St Helens rock. It was like you had found me in Bob's stolen car, and declared me a thief victoriously, only to later find out that Bob had in fact not had his car stolen but he had lent it to me.

 

That was an example of how a simple deduction was hidden behind the varnish of technical scientific jargon, but I won the debate because I had to sift through science information in order to find out your error, of which you did not even know you had made. So just because something is simple, doesn't mean it follows that it is easy. And that is one of the biggest things in the EvC debate, evolutionists hiding fallacies behind technical jargon.

 

Just keep telling yourself that, mike.....whatever makes you feel better about yourself.....you sure seem to need it....






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users