Tuesday, March 29, 2016

125 Rebuttals, 26 to 30

This is a post in a series of responses to this forum post.

Let's dive right back into it.

26: The Proof of Astounding New Complex Genes

The basic premise of this argument can be found in the first part of point four, which reads as such:
4. The complexity of genetic control at this level astounds researchers
 The author then extrapolates in point five, as follows:
5. The level of coordination of such genetic complexity is almost beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.
Importantly, the operative word here is 'almost.' It's not beyond our comprehension, otherwise the previous three points which preceded it would not be there.  Literally, if we couldn't understand it, we certainly couldn't write about it.

If you don't believe me, just try this simple experiment for yourself.  Take a piece of paper, and perhaps a pencil.  Start writing about something that's literally incomprehensible.  Not merely something which astounds you, but that you literally cannot comprehend.  It's quite impossible to think of something you can't think of, now isn't it?
6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.
 This is such a waffle of a sentence, but let's try to keep it simple.  Basically, the argument is that it's so complex that it can't be designed, therefore something designed it.  It's so incomprehensible that it can still be comprehended by the author to make this point.  It escapes human understanding, but somehow this guy understands it well enough to know that.  Need I continue?
7. God exists.
That doesn't follow from the last point.  Literally, there are hundreds of other options which could (and at least one that does) explain it, which are devoid of any god, including his.  This point is tired, and maybe I'll start skipping it.

Also, if all men call it god, does that mean that anyone who doesn't call his imaginary friend 'god' isn't man?  I digress.  Let's move to the next argument which doesn't argue anything.

27: The Argument from the DNA's Molecular Motor

Based upon the phrasing of this one, I'm guessing that the author doesn't understand what those last two words mean.  Maybe this one will have a coherent point that isn't just copypasta.

Unfortunately, the first three points are.  Which brings us to this set. Please note that all red text is my annotations, not part of the original text of the argument.
5. Even viruses, [as though that's all that matters] which are not even alive by the scientific definition of being able to reproduce independently [which includes things like fire, salt crystals, quartz crystals, and lots of things], show incredible design [no, they don't].
6. If [and you've shown no evidence that it's the case] design is what we observe [we do not], then there must be a designer.
Well, sure. Similarly, if we do not observe design, then the corollary is that there must not be one?  Ergo, having noticed no design (in the sense he means it), we can conclude, by his own logic, that no god is observed.  Next point.

I found some raccoon prints on a log by the river.
Embiggen to see them!

28: Basically the same thing as 27. Seriously, go check it out.

The basic premise of this argument is that, since things move, and humans created things that move, only a god can create things that move.  Similarly, that everything which moves is created by god.  It's a terrible argument, and I'll pick it up here.  Let's try some more of that nifty red text stuff.
7. Machines found in cells are absolutely extraordinary [it's true! The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell] in their characteristics, inspiring the creativity of the most advanced researchers [also correct. scientists routinely use cellular stuff to make things nowadays]. However, the cell machines although almost identical in form but different in size are superior in efficiency to the mechanical devices that the best engineers design for everyday life [which is because cells are amazingly efficient, because they had to evolve to be that way].
8. This indicates that the biomachines found in cells require a level of intelligent design [although it actually doesn't, because point seven clearly illustrates that we're borrowing ideas from the cells, not the other way around] f, jpg, jpeg, png, gif, pdf, zip etc…
ar greater than what man has accomplished [well, arguably, if we're able to use them to our advantage, we're multiplying their abilities, but either way, this point doesn't follow].
I hope you can see the logical inconsistencies present herein.   I sh26 to [{an't tarry longer, as we've more redundant posts to cover!  Let me know if you like the red text stuff!

29: Argument from the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation.

So we have more copypasta, which tells us that we've got a code that we use to represent specific sequences of nucleotides.  This is in fact a code which does exist, which is a sort of shorthand for the various bits of stuff that exist in DNA, etc.  We are then presented with this dubiously-worded sentence as point three:
3. The GCL binary representation and the genetic code are both isomorphic systems. Thus, the characteristics that are true of the GCL binary representation must also be true of the genetic code.
Taken on it's own, this isn't a terrible thing.  However, it's dubiousness comes full circle in point five:
5. Such a graceful symmetry, organization, and structure indicates a code that has been designed for a purpose.
Basically, it's saying that because we developed a code to explain DNA, that the DNA itself must also be such a designed code.  This isn't true, and it's a category error.  It's exactly the same as saying that, because we have a system for naming trees, they must have been designed to receive those names.  An 'Elm' isn't simply an 'Elm' just because it's the name we gave it, but because god designed it specifically to be an 'Elm.'  We did indeed invent the code which describes trees, exactly as we did with DNA.  However, there's absolutely no indication that Elm trees were designed to be Elm trees just so we could give them that name, or so that they could occupy elm-shaped voids in the atmosphere where they happen to reside.  This is similarly the kind of symmetry that exists in DNA, such that a tree occupies space which would otherwise be filled with air in its absence.  Labeling it does not mean it was designed to be labeled, or to signify anything in the code we gave it.

30: The argument of the double function of the genetic code. 

For disclosure, the article from which the information was pulled is titled "The Hidden Codes that Shaped Protein Evolution." The author is literally using an article on evolution to cherry-pick bits of information to argue against evolution.  I don't have access to the full article, but I can surmise what the actual points being made are, given the information in this argument.

Point four seems to be the first bit not directly from the article, based on the writing style.
4. According to the research [which is nowhere to be found in your absent citations], natural selection constrains or eliminates change [sometimes, and other times it favors change] (purifying selection) [I'm not sure of this term in context] is not helpful for creating new organs or functions [except when it is, of course]
Our intrepid forum user shows great disdain over his inability to understand evolution, and even more to understand that evolution can exist in a designed universe.  Any argument which lays its fundamental groundwork on the idea that evolution cannot exist within a designed universe is flawed, because it could.  A designer could easily design such an algorithm, it's how chatbots learn things.  I leave the Google search for 'Microsoft Tay' as an exercise for the viewer.

5. Thus, for Darwinists [citation needed] to explain unguided physical processes [evolution is guided by multiple things, but none of them is a designer] is already impossible [citation needed] and with this new discovery [it would be the first new thing in 30 arguments] they are even in bigger trouble [I dunno, I think the biggest trouble is the grammatical inconsistency of this argument].
As we can see, this is just a terrible projection.  This is a person who doesn't understand science, who doesn't understand that being wrong can be the most exciting thing in science.  

6. The words: information, architecture, optimized, and function are not always and not only referring to a person with thinking feeling and willing. Other proposed agents [like the god you speak of] cannot on their own give information [can god show himself?], design [what designed god, again?], optimize [can god remove junk DNA, or cancer?] or execute [any joke here would be in bad taste] tasks. This has never been shown.
Basically, the entire premise is that a signifying gene can act in more than one way, and this could never happen in nature.  We all know quite well that one thing cannot serve two purposes depending on context, in nature.  Actually, that's bollocks, so let's end it there for now.  Again, if you like what I'm doing here, feel free to let me know!  I'm on twitter @acce245 and I'm on youtube.  Look me up, check my stuff out, and if you really enjoy reading my words, follow me on patreon!

Best regards to all of you, and have a great day!