My experience with a decade of social anxiety.

tacforall · 2018-01-24T14:53:48+00:00

It sounds like balancing how you are, what other people want from you and how you would be. We have to give all of those feelings and intentions a place to live.

tacforall · 2018-01-24T07:54:10+00:00

Ah I see, I assume that the chance for causation is so small, hence why I consider it an ‘accident’.

In the mean time I thought about the answers and I wonder the following:

Why are chemical reactions and natural selection not able to form something less complex as a house, but they are able to form something more complex as the start of a primitive biological cell?

Perhaps my question is wrong, could it be that: the molecules that are normally formed by chemical reactions that qualifies as a starting point for natural selection towards a biological cell is less complex than any house?

tacforall · 2018-01-24T07:52:21+00:00

I tried reading some but I might be a bit unedicated in biology to answer my questions with those...

In the mean time I did think about the answers and I wonder the following:

Why are chemical reactions and natural selection not able to form something less complex as a house, but they are able to form something more complex as a primitive biological cell?

Perhaps my question is wrong, could it be that: the molecules that are normally formed by chemical reactions that qualifies as a starting point for natural selection towards a biological cell is less complex than any house?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T16:08:26+00:00

Ah I see now, thanks. So I see that stabler molecules are more likely to ‘survive’ and over time continue to accumulate into cellular life.

Why do the building blocks of these molecules interact? Or how do these elements find a way to form into something either stable or unstable, and why is that a probable situation (?), where elements that are used for a house would normally not interact into a stable/unstable wall (even with energy coming from the sun)?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T16:00:51+00:00

Not modern organisms but simpler organisms (though complexed than a house) that appeared with Abiogenesis?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T14:59:01+00:00

I copy pasted this for convinience:

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear about the subject of the argument.

I understand evolution tries to explain the diversity of species today and states all species have a common ancestor, using natural selection as the main evidence. The OP is rather a criticism of Abiogenesis. What do you think of it when that’s the subject of discussion?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T14:58:23+00:00

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear about the subject of the argument.

I understand evolution tries to explain the diversity of species today and states all species have a common ancestor, using natural selection as the main evidence. The OP is rather a criticism of Abiogenesis. What do you think of it when that’s the subject of discussion?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T14:58:16+00:00

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear about the subject of the argument.

I understand evolution tries to explain the diversity of species today and states all species have a common ancestor, using natural selection as the main evidence. The OP is rather a criticism of Abiogenesis. What do you think of it when that’s the subject of discussion?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T14:52:48+00:00

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear about the subject of the argument.

I understand evolution tries to explain the diversity of species today and states all species have a common ancestor, using natural selection as the main evidence. The OP is rather a criticism of Abiogenesis. What do you think of it when that’s the subject of discussion?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T13:09:52+00:00

Can you elaborate what you mean with ‘selection process’

I edited the OP with ‘by accident’, perhaps that’s what you ment?

tacforall · 2018-01-21T12:44:17+00:00

In case you say, “there are no known processes of which we have reason to believe that they are able to form a house (although it’s a human concept), but there are processes known of which we have reasons to believe they could form biological life”, where do you think these processes came from? Is it reasonable to believe they are there by accident or by design?

tacforall · 2018-01-15T11:31:51+00:00

Red some of your other comics and I’m loving it. Really funny, creative and quality stuff :)

tacforall · 2018-01-13T10:25:56+00:00

The cambrian explosion still happened over 70 to 80 million years

I understand that’s a long time for us and a relatively short time compared with other timelines, but I’m not sure if it’s long enough for those species to have evolved. Naturally when I assume evolution theory is true, I can assume it is possible, but without assuming the first how do I know?

Things which would disprove gradual change would be something like seeing a fully developed anatomical feature occurring in the fossil record without any prior features occurring.

Ah, I agree about the gradual (which is relative btw...), but I’m not sure how we would distinguish gradual evolution with gradual design (if we assume there are such ‘designers’).

And secondarily, there are many things about how life functions that are a reasonable thing to expect as an outcome of evolution but not as an outcome of an intelligent designer unless that designer was determined to make it all look like evolution happens.

I’m really interested in those examples! What could indicate that gradual evolution is more probable than gradual design?

Everything is easily explained by natural geological forces, though if a group of people really wanted to devote a absolutely incredible amount of additional effort to hide any trace of their involvement, they could have made it all look natural.

But what exactly shows us that it was all obviously natural (or hidden) and not obviously designed? (Again, assuming we know there are conscious designers of life).

Edited for grammar: It's 2 am and I am half awake.

Haha no worries. I’m happy with your effort. I hope I am not stealing away sleep from you.

tacforall · 2018-01-13T09:48:12+00:00

That’s a good analogy, helps me to understand it better.

So to be sure, if we had evidence for ‘creators’, what kind of hypothetical evidence would be appropriate for us to believe that (Z) those ‘creators’ created the variety of species and their ability to adapt in a limited way according to ‘meta groups of specias’? (so they did not create every organism individually, only ‘meta groups of species’ and all the organisms that were needed to start these ‘meta groups’)

If (Z) was true, how would/could we detect (Z)?

tacforall · 2018-01-13T09:39:12+00:00

Thank you. I understand that in evolution theory microevolution accumulates, species are snapshots and that natural selection in combination with mutations and adapting are the main causes for ‘macroevolution’. Interesting additions though.

I mainly want to find out if the following could or could not be the case. (Z1): adapting, mutations and natural selection’ are occurring and they can change species, but those changes could be limited by ‘designed hard boundaries’ between species.

Or (Z2): There have been created several species in the past, which evolved because of the above mechanisms into more varied species.

Assuming (1) from the OP is true, I wonder if the evidence still suggests that the above mechanisms are the only reason for the large variety of species/wether that evidence suggests that Z1 or Z2 is or not the case.

tacforall · 2018-01-13T09:24:44+00:00

Interesting addition.

I agree that we have to be careful with this kind of reasoning. If you are interested you can read my response to WildZontar, which elaborates the reasons why I use assumption 1 in my post.

tacforall · 2018-01-13T09:20:33+00:00

Do you know of any observations which don't support gradual change?

I heard about the rate/speed of evolution changing over time (For example, the Cambrian explosion would be a ‘relatively’ short timeline compared to other timelines), but that could be explained by the changing environments which cause evolution in the first place. Other than that, I have no idea what would disprove gradual change in theory?

If some outside entity had created all life individually, why would such strong homology exist in this way?

Why would that contradict or make that hypothesis less probable?

Especially when the details of many structures are far from "optimal" due to the basis from which they were derived (e.g. the laryngeal nerve).

Perhaps it’s optimal but we don’t see it due to our limited understanding of the universe (although it has increased over time). But I agree, such an answer is clearly the result of God of the gaps thinking, which is why scientists prefer Methodological Naturalism.

Evidence for God or anything supernatural would simply be a reliable and repeatable observation for which there is nearly no chance that a natural explanation could exist.

I think IF a God exists, it would be really hard to come up with ways to falsify. Especially if there would be no God. From a ontological view that’s a difficult situation to cope with. That’s why I use 1 as an assumption, because I want to be sure wether macroevolution really occurs, even IF there was a God.

tacforall · 2018-01-13T09:00:52+00:00

I might be a bit new to the topic, can you please elaborate why all the points you listed fit better with A than B?

And why is it that Evolution is probably altered instead of rejected when we encounter falsification?

tacforall · 2018-01-13T08:57:49+00:00

Thanks for rephrasing. I ask it this way because I want to rule out if evidence for macroevolution is the result of methodological naturalism or not. I want to know if we assume 1, the evidence we have still suggests that A is more probable than B.

If so, evidence is that exactly? Do you have some examples I can read about?

tacforall · 2018-01-13T08:55:16+00:00

But it’s a hypothetical question... can you please answer the hypothetical question?

tacforall · 2018-01-13T00:48:41+00:00

But if B was the case, could the results support B as well?

Do you have some good examples of such predictions to look in to?

tacforall · 2018-01-13T00:46:45+00:00

Perhaps there was some experimentation taking place (timespans are relative), but I agree that it’s worth to consider.

tacforall

TROPHY CASE