Comment by Michael on October 5, 2011 at 8:16pm

"If we derive our sense of beauty and elegance from nature, it follows that we will find beauty and elegance in nature.  This is the major shortcoming of such anthropocentric arguments.  They just don't resolve to any objective point.  That said, anyone who has actually studied biology is well aware that there are many inelegant systems out there, as well as countless brutal failures, defects and deficits in living organisms."

Show me one example. I studied biology, nowhere do I see the almost, half baked in the process of evolving, just can't do it, almost systems that you speak of. They simply don't exist. Every species is  well suite for its particular environment with great efficiency. You can not down play the great efficiency of nature and its well  (not will) ordered systems.

Comment by kris feenstra on October 5, 2011 at 8:17pm

One example?  How about any species that has ever gone extinct?

Comment by matt.clerke on October 5, 2011 at 8:47pm

Every species is  well suite for its particular environment with great efficiency

Why don't we see plains horses with wheels instead of legs then? Its a crazy analogy but it makes my point... every species is not "well suite for its particular environment", every species is adequate for its environment, which is exactly what we would expect from evolution. You want an example of an organism which is not adapted to its environment? they are already dead or have moved to an environment where it can survive.

Comment by Chris on October 5, 2011 at 11:38pm

For Michael, you're using one of Ray's own nonsense arguments when you claim that evolution could occur but "not with the beauty and elogence [sic] of that which is apparent in nature". As the old saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What is beautiful to us is beautiful because we know it. The patterns and symmetry that we find beautiful are beautiful because they are familiar and appeal to our senses. We are symmetrical beings and therefore that is what we find attractive. If we were amorphous blobs, our current ideas of beauty and elegance would be hideous to us. The "beauty of nature" as evidence for "God" argument is bullshit.

 

Then you also follow Ray's screwball ideas regarding evolution with your comment "to calibrate these trillions of parameters through helter skelter mutation is just incredulous". It's not "helter skelter mutation". It's selective mutation. The mutations that don't work die out. The mutations that do work survive and thrive. And I'm sorry, but billions of years is plenty of time given such a selective system.

Comment by Eoganacht on October 5, 2011 at 11:53pm

I find this video very dishonest. The people they talk to do not seem to know what they are talking about. You will not see an biologist going out onto the street and challanging random people about the cosmological arguement or whatever. Or theists about evolution.

Comment by Michael on October 7, 2011 at 12:22am

And I'm sorry, but billions of years is plenty of time given such a selective system."

This is only a supposition. There are no trans phylum evidence of evolution in the paleontological record. I will give you an "ataboy" and a financial gift  for every instance of trans phylum evolution found. For without trans phylum evolution the most salient aspect of the postulate would be false.

An engineer does not accept the argument of  time since we can speed the combined effect of random mutatiom with selective breeding and try and evolve efficient mechanical systems with minimal redundancies as found in nature. Thesee math models, even for simple systems can not keep up with nature in terms of minimal redundancies and efficencies. Whereas biological systems are near infinitely more complex involving many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom.

Comment by Tex on October 7, 2011 at 9:15am

Hi Michael, have you read this yet?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19942614

I'll admit it's over my head, but just because we don't have the evidence to satisfy everyone yet doesn't mean we won't, just look how far we have come in the last 100 years. And just because it can't be proven yet, is certainly no argument that it all came about by an invisible spirit in the sky that apparently came from nowhere and has always existed, yet these same people have a problem with the Big Bang, go figure.

Comment by Michael on October 8, 2011 at 11:45am

@Kris Feenstra One example?  How about any species that has ever gone extinct?

No extinctions are examples of species well evolved for their environment but the environment disappears. It's no reflection on design or efficiency of the biological system

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago. 182 Replies

Blog Posts

Zella Mae Jarrett

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 19, 2014 at 11:35pm 2 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service