Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[reggieM]

Suggested reading: R.C. Sproul’s Not A Chance

That does look good - thanks.

 

[reggieM]

It’s a touch more complex than that, but yeah, that’s the principle. If you have even a slight advantage over the guy next to you (and I don’t mean in the supermarket queue), then you survive longer than he will to pass on whatever advantage to your offspring.

Rinse and repeat.

It’s an understatement to call it a touch more complex than that.
But first of all, there’s the tautology I mentioned before.
Of course, it’s not true that all runners are the fastest. Depending on random variation in the environment a slower runner can have more advantage than a fast one.
So, in the end, the theory claims: Organisms that have survival advantages in an environment are more likely to survive than those that don’t.
And we know that an organism had the advantage because we can see that it survived.
That tells us nothing.
The environment is continually changing with the addition of new predators and competition for resources, changes in food supplies and changes in climate conditions and other enviromental factors (disasters, etc). We can barely predict simple weather patterns a month from now, nothing can be said of a year or two or ten from now. So the theory has no predictive power - along with saying nothing except “the fittest survive”.
Additionally, there is no need for organisms to evolve, given some have shown stasis for millions of years – obviously facing all of those environmental changes.
Bacteria are still as they were millions of years ago, never needing to evolve to new species.
The sudden appearance of complex organisms in the Cambrian Explosion is another problem.
The limits of what mutations can actually produce in cells are another.
Irreducible complexity of micro-biological machines is another.
Also, when morphological evidence does not align with genetic evidence (claims of convergent evolution) is another.
Those are a few issues off the top of my head, giving this very little thought for the moment.

Some biologists know of these problems with evolution – and many more problems than this.

Some are trying to come up with a new theory to replace Darwin (the so-called Third Way).

The only thing they all have in common is that they believe God had nothing to do with it.

 

[Bradski]

It’s an understatement to call it a touch more complex than that.
But first of all, there’s the tautology I mentioned before.
Of course, it’s not true that all runners are the fastest. Depending on random variation in the environment a slower runner can have more advantage than a fast one.
So, in the end, the theory claims: Organisms that have survival advantages in an environment are more likely to survive than those that don’t.
And we know that an organism had the advantage because we can see that it survived.
That tells us nothing.
The environment is continually changing with the addition of new predators and competition for resources, changes in food supplies and changes in climate conditions and other enviromental factors (disasters, etc). We can barely predict simple weather patterns a month from now, nothing can be said of a year or two or ten from now. So the theory has no predictive power - along with saying nothing except “the fittest survive”.
Additionally, there is no need for organisms to evolve, given some have shown stasis for millions of years – obviously facing all of those environmental changes.
Bacteria are still as they were millions of years ago, never needing to evolve to new species.

It beats me. For someone who wants to denigrate evolution, why spend the best part of a post explaining how it all works? The only fly in the ointment is saying that it doesn’t tell us anything to say that organisms that survive. Ye gods, that’s the proof of the theory, for heaven’s sake.

It might seem blindingly obvious to you now that those that are best suited to their environment survive more than those that aren’t but it took Darwin to join the dots.

So yes, it was an understatement to simply say that ‘fast runners survive best’. And yes, depending on the circumstances, a slow runner could be at an advantage to a fast one. And yes, there is no predictive power. And no, there is no need for all organisms to change. And yes, we know that an organism survived because it was better fitted to its environment. And yes, bacteria are pretty much as they have always been.

I think you are close to getting it…

 

[tonyrey]

It beats me. For someone who wants to denigrate evolution, why spend the best part of a post explaining how it all works?

There is a difference between evolution by Chance and evolution by Design…

The only fly in the ointment is saying that it doesn’t tell us anything to say that organisms that survive. Ye gods, that’s the proof of the theory, for heaven’s sake.

It might seem blindingly obvious to you now that those that are best suited to their environment survive more than those that aren’t but it took Darwin to join the dots.
So yes, it was an understatement to simply say that ‘fast runners survive best’. And yes, depending on the circumstances, a slow runner could be at an advantage to a fast one. And yes, there is no predictive power. And no, there is no need for all organisms to change. And yes, we know that an organism survived because it was better fitted to its environment. And yes, bacteria are pretty much as they have always been.

It was not inevitable that the environment was conducive to the origin or development of life. In a hostile universe the odds are stacked against its appearance at all, a fact confirmed by evidence that it has almost become extinct on this planet several times. The hypothesis that life is the product of Chance and Necessity is unreasonable because it implies that reason itself is derived from purposeless events!

 

[tonyrey]

It’s an understatement to call it a touch more complex than that.
But first of all, there’s the tautology I mentioned before.
Of course, it’s not true that all runners are the fastest. Depending on random variation in the environment a slower runner can have more advantage than a fast one.
So, in the end, the theory claims: Organisms that have survival advantages in an environment are more likely to survive than those that don’t.
And we know that an organism had the advantage because we can see that it survived.
That tells us nothing.
The environment is continually changing with the addition of new predators and competition for resources, changes in food supplies and changes in climate conditions and other enviromental factors (disasters, etc). We can barely predict simple weather patterns a month from now, nothing can be said of a year or two or ten from now. So the theory has no predictive power - along with saying nothing except “the fittest survive”.
Additionally, there is no need for organisms to evolve, given some have shown stasis for millions of years – obviously facing all of those environmental changes.
Bacteria are still as they were millions of years ago, never needing to evolve to new species.
The sudden appearance of complex organisms in the Cambrian Explosion is another problem.
The limits of what mutations can actually produce in cells are another.
Irreducible complexity of micro-biological machines is another.
Also, when morphological evidence does not align with genetic evidence (claims of convergent evolution) is another.
Those are a few issues off the top of my head, giving this very little thought for the moment.

Some biologists know of these problems with evolution – and many more problems than this.

Some are trying to come up with a new theory to replace Darwin (the so-called Third Way).

The only thing they all have in common is that they believe God had nothing to do with it.

Good points that remain unanswered!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Tut tut tut boys.

You all fell for the simplest and most common mistake in understanding, interpreting and explaining certain aspects of evolution.

Plays NCIS music and considers doing a Trumpnand tweeting. ’ you are all fired’

 

[Eric_Hyom]

So yes, it was an understatement to simply say that ‘fast runners survive best’. And yes, depending on the circumstances, a slow runner could be at an advantage to a fast one. And yes, there is no predictive power. And no, there is no need for all organisms to change. And yes, we know that an organism survived because it was better fitted to its environment. And yes, bacteria are pretty much as they have always been.

The ToE seems to be lots of nice fuzzy words, but lacking in detail.

Apparently the eye could have evolved in about 1800 small incremental steps. But the Nilsson model seems to overlook the need for the nervous system to improve in 1800 steps, the brain would also need to improve in 1800 steps. And for the eyes to have any real evolutionary advantage, all this would have to be understood by the limbs, again in 1800 incremental stages.

Any ideas of how all this could happen without guidance from God? Some convincing detail would be appreciated.

 

[rossum]

The ToE seems to be lots of nice fuzzy words, but lacking in detail.

You haven’t read the scientific detail, have you. I get 5,340,000 hits on Google Scholar for “evolution”.

Apparently the eye could have evolved in about 1800 small incremental steps. But the Nilsson model seems to overlook the need for the nervous system to improve in 1800 steps, the brain would also need to improve in 1800 steps. And for the eyes to have any real evolutionary advantage, all this would have to be understood by the limbs, again in 1800 incremental stages.

How to put this politely? Erm… No. Someone who is colour-blind, with less effective eyesight than average has the same brain, nervous system and limbs (limbs?!?) as someone with normal vision.

A tetrachromat, with better than normal colour vision again has the same nervous system and brain, but the brain has learned to use the greater colour-resolution from the tetrachromat’s eyes.

Brains and nervous systems can adapt, especially in early life. Genetic changes to eyes will generally appear early on and so are adapted for.

Any ideas of how all this could happen without guidance from God? Some convincing detail would be appreciated.

See Evolution 101.

As to the question in the OP: Religions will change and adjust, but survive. For example, I suspect that the 6,000 year-old earth literalist style of Creationism will slowly die out. It has already begun to adapt to evolution. Back in the days of the Scopes Trial, it said “Evolution does not happen”. Today it is more like, “Evolution happens, but only within Biblical kinds”. Eventually it may become “All life on Earth forms one single kind, created by God.” That last is compatible with evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Related to the above, they aren’t concerned with the “why” because secularist scientists don’t really think there is one, other than to keep on reproducing (but often they also advocate for homosexuality and transgenderism, which is a confusing stance intended for another thread).

The homosexuality issue (why does it not get eliminated by natural selection) has somewhat been solved. There is apparently a pair of “Phwoar! He’s hunky!” genes. If women carry them, then they have more children than average and hence those genes have an advantage under natural selection.

If a man carries those genes, then he is more likely to be homosexual. But the disadvantage is less than the advantage among women, so the genes survive in the population.

See Why Gays don’t go extinct.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

So yes, it was an understatement to simply say that ‘fast runners survive best’. And yes, depending on the circumstances, a slow runner could be at an advantage to a fast one.

Ok, true. So, if the theory said, “the fastest runners are the ones that survive” - it would be wrong. So instead it would have to say, “The runners best suited to survival are the ones that survive”. But the only way we know that is by looking at today’s survivors and saying “those were the most fit, best suited to survive”. That’s the tautology - we’re going in circles.

And yes, there is no predictive power.

True. We cannot look at organisms today and declare: “This one will evolve to thrive in a thousand years and the other will go extinct”. But if the theory does not tell us what will happen in the future, how can it be accurate about what happened in the past?

 

[rossum]

So, in the end, the theory claims: Organisms that have survival advantages in an environment are more likely to survive than those that don’t.
And we know that an organism had the advantage because we can see that it survived.
That tells us nothing.

You are missing the point that genes are passed on to offspring, and so spread through the population. Living a long life is not directly important. Living a short life, while having lots of grandchildren is more important. Grandchildren mean that you are a) having children and b) those children are themselves reproducing.

The environment is continually changing with the addition of new predators and competition for resources, changes in food supplies and changes in climate conditions and other enviromental factors (disasters, etc). We can barely predict simple weather patterns a month from now, nothing can be said of a year or two or ten from now. So the theory has no predictive power - along with saying nothing except “the fittest survive”.

There is some predictive power. We can predict that bacteria will evolve resistance to a new antibiotic. We cannot predict precisely what the change will be beforehand, but it will be the change that produces the most grandchildren (¿grand-bacteria?) in the presence of the antibiotic.

Additionally, there is no need for organisms to evolve, given some have shown stasis for millions of years – obviously facing all of those environmental changes.

External appearance may show stasis, but DNA may be changing under the surface. For example, Europeans mostly have the lactase persistence mutation, and adaptations to survive the Black Death. Neither of those will show in fossils in a million years time once DNA has decayed.

Bacteria are still as they were millions of years ago, never needing to evolve to new species.

So, next time you are ill you will demand unmodified Penicillin, rather than a more modern drug that will kill Penicillin-resistant bacteria?

The sudden appearance of complex organisms in the Cambrian Explosion is another problem.

Sudden? Five to fifteen million years is sudden? You also need to study the Precambrian Ediacaran biota. There were complex organisms before the Cambrian.

Irreducible complexity of micro-biological machines is another.

No it is not. Even Professor Behe has agreed that IC systems can evolve. It takes longer because they cannot evolve by direct routes (Behe was correct about that) but they can evolve, albeit slowly, by indirect routes, as Behe himself has shown. See Behe and Snoke (2004) “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”.

The only thing they all have in common is that they believe God had nothing to do with it.

Francis Collins, Ken Miller and other Christian biologists will disagree with you there.

rossum

 

[Vonsalza]

Ok, I have never seen a evolutionary biology paper ever stating that evolutionary science only explains the development of the human body.

Again, I’d forward the idea that for the secular evolutionist, there is nothing beyond “the body”. The metaphysical characteristic of a human being are non-material, if even extant (in their view), ergo it is not up for consideration.

they all state that evolution explains the emergence of human beings, in their entirety.

Because the non-material person isn’t presumed to exist.

If you have a scientific paper that supports your view - keep in mind, I believe you’re saying it is the “consensus” (most widely held) belief in the evolutionary science community (that evolution only affects the body and not the entire human being) – I would like to see that. I mean, even one paper.

And again, as any non-material thing that pertains to humanity is not perceived to exist, there won’t be one.

The greatest and best treatise I’ve read on the topic is “The Social Conquest of Earth” by E O Wilson. Obviously he didn’t mention souls and the like. As he’s an atheist, I don’t expect him to.

En toto, you seem to be demanding a standard that I don’t think needs to be met.

Yes, exactly. That’s what evolution is. Everything is driven only by survival and reproduction. All of the most well-known evolutionists in the world today (even those that reject neo-Darwinism) are secularist-atheist scientists.

And again, as they are blind to metaphysical concepts in this field of study, they are not asserting that it explains the soul. How could they? They’re not particularly convinced it exists.

 

[Vonsalza]

The homosexuality issue (why does it not get eliminated by natural selection) has somewhat been solved. There is apparently a pair of “Phwoar! He’s hunky!” genes. If women carry them, then they have more children than average and hence those genes have an advantage under natural selection.

If a man carries those genes, then he is more likely to be homosexual. But the disadvantage is less than the advantage among women, so the genes survive in the population.

See Why Gays don’t go extinct.

rossum

Interesting article. But in fairness, an internally consistent explanation doesn’t make something “somewhat… solved”. At least, per the scientific method.

 

[Vonsalza]

The ToE seems to be lots of nice fuzzy words, but lacking in detail.

Probably because its a model. Specific language on how a fish evolved would be different from specific language on how your dog evolved. The ideas of environmental pressure, fitness and reproduction would be the same, but the for-instances would be radically different as the dog and fish dwell in radically different environments.

 

[rossum]

Interesting article. But in fairness, an internally consistent explanation doesn’t make something “somewhat… solved”. At least, per the scientific method.

Those genes only apply to male homosexuality, and there are other effects in play for lesbians and other male gays. For example, the more older brothers a male child has, the more likely he is to be homosexual.

It is a partial explanation, but there is still more work to do.

rossum

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You haven’t read the scientific detail, have you. I get 5,340,000 hits on Google Scholar for “evolution”.

I have read enough on Google to know that the evolution of the eye lacks detail.

How to put this politely? Erm… No. Someone who is colour-blind, with less effective eyesight than average has the same brain, nervous system and limbs (limbs?!?) as someone with normal vision.

A tetrachromat, with better than normal colour vision again has the same nervous system and brain, but the brain has learned to use the greater colour-resolution from the tetrachromat’s eyes.

Brains and nervous systems can adapt, especially in early life. Genetic changes to eyes will generally appear early on and so are adapted for.

Lets go back in time to when there were no eyes, brains, nervous systems, limbs. So how did all these things evolve together? We know the brain is able to learn, but go back a few billion years before brains evolved, and lets hear a complete story

 

[reggieM]

Francis Collins, Ken Miller and other Christian biologists will disagree with you there.

You think Collins and Miller believe that God was involved in the evolutionary process?

 

[reggieM]

Francis Collins, Ken Miller and other Christian biologists will disagree with you there.

Ken Miller believes that God had nothing to do with the evolutionary process and did not guide it to any particular result. The emergence of human beings, according to Miller, was a surprise to God.

Biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, author of the popular book Finding Darwin’s God (which is used in many Christian colleges), insists that evolution is an undirected process,** flatly denying that God guided the evolutionary process to achieve any particular result—including the development of human beings**. Indeed, Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” [Finding Darwin’s God (1999), p. 272]

So, we are not intentionally created through the will of God and by his Love. That is consistent with atheism and not with Catholicism.

Miller does say that God knew that the undirected process of evolution was so wonderful it would create some sort of rational creature capable of praising Him eventually. But what that something would be was radically undetermined. How undetermined? At a 2007 conference, Miller admitted that evolution could have produced “a big-brained dinosaur” or a “mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than human beings.

Miller’s god is lacking in knowledge of the future as well as lacking in the power to create - so his god is powerless against the processes of nature.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolution speaks of species, represented by individual living organisms existing briefly and separate from the environment in which they participate and go on to procreate others like themselves.
That is one way to understand life, but consider that any self-directed purely physical evolution, would involve a transformation of biological entities made up of atoms, which can be further broken down into subatomic processes, all behaving in accordance with the unchanging material laws that govern the universe.
The tetrahedral structure of carbon is an example of how matter allows for the great diversity in organic molecules that allows for the anatomy and physiology that we see in living beings.
The properties such as that of the carbon atom are “eternal”, in the sense that they exist at least as potentials everywhere and in every time, in Nature, for as long as their is a universe.
Therefore on a physical level, what takes place would be better understood as an evolution of the universe taking place in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics and as yet to be formulated, biological “forces” responsible for the increasing complexity that arises in time.

Obviously evolution is more complex than those phenomena that physics and chemistry describe.
While material process are involved in the structure and physiology of the physical brain, in animals we find the emergence of instincts: sensory experiences of pleasure and pain, perceptual gestalts that signify predator or prey, emotional reactions of fear and anger, organized behavioural reactions of fight and flight, and so on.
There is no nonreductionistic explanation for these mental phenomena other than that they are equally a part of the universe as are molecules and supernovae.

I would conclude that one should be a pantheist when considering how this process is driven to come up with what is happening right here where one might conclude that at the very least the universe is trying to understand itself through us.

Under the category of the psychological, we might include the realities of reason, mathematics, knowledge, economics, political theory, all the various fields of study as well as archetypal phenomena such as the hero of our life drama, perhaps even beauty and morality, where this mental dimension of being intersects that of the spiritual.

And here, right now what is clearest and undeniable is the reality of our individual being.
That is what leads us to automatically think of organisms as separate from their environment and being more or less suited for survival, rather than as nodes within a continuum of processes.
Each of us moves, perceives, feels and thinks not as a collection of material or mental events within a continuous totality, but as a self in relation to the universe in which we participate.
And, we exist as other to someone else’s self, someone with whom we can connect.
Experience demonstrates that this connection is on a spectrum from communion to isolated loneliness.
At the Core, the Ground from which all existence comes into being, we find Love - God.

While today’s science provides some degree of understanding, it is superficial and circumstantial, lacking in any depth as to who and what we are, and generally gets it wrong both ontologically and historically in my not so humble, I suppose, opinion.
The truth is the truth; it will win out.

 

[reggieM]

I have read enough on Google to know that the evolution of the eye lacks detail.

Evolutionists like to bluff about what they really know, which is actually quite little.

Lets go back in time to when there were no eyes, brains, nervous systems, limbs. So how did all these things evolve together? We know the brain is able to learn, but go back a few billion years before brains evolved, and lets hear a complete story

All you can get out of them is that we observe very minor changes in existing species and supposedly that explains the emergence of human intelligence, consciousness and rationality from non-rational organisms, all via a blind, unintelligent process with mostly random (name removed by moderator)uts.

Mutations are random (in the atheist view) and environmental conditions are random. The unexplained “desire for survival and reproduction” are the supposed law-like features of the model, but they are affected by randomness - so the process is random and accidental.