One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monkey1976 said:
Small aside, here: Using particular code routines called “genetic algorithms”, it has been shown that evolved devices are not only possible, but their design and efficiency is beyond anything we could do on purpose. See my post #941 for details.
Click to expand...
Have you read any of the literature on “no free lunch theorems” (Wolpert and Macready), or Dembski’s work on “conservation of information?” The point, generally, is that information is (name removed by moderator)utted somewhere into the system such that what appears to be random generation isn’t really so. The algorithms are “tuned” to the search fields to allow success. The algorithms do the “work” that is attributed to successful “evolution.”

Some of Dawkins original work in biology was done in this area. Meyer spends a few chapters looking at a number of approaches along these lines in Signature in the Cell.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Who cares what others do? Rework the theory. Nobel Prizes have been won for small modifications in theories, resulting in enormous leaps of understanding.

With regard to some of the earlier discussions regarding chance, remember that when it comes to evolution, the only beings that can even come up with opinions on that chance is those that are the result of the small chance. If there are 1 x 10^100 planets in the universe, and only one has life, then guess what? The theory fits the observation (not that I necessarily subscribe to that POV).

Those arguing against evolution because of small chances also don’t have evidence against the possibility that we can be a result of small chance. Infinitesimally small doesn’t equal impossible. Unless those that are the possible result of such a small chance can come up with other life in the universe to prove their point, they simply have a hypothesis, and a weak one at that.
Click to expand...
First, you didn’t answer my question. Someone hands you a theory and one key aspect of it has a number that doesn’t make sense. You ask for an explanation several times and don’t get one. What do you do? I have been challenging the thought process, but no one here nor the works cited seem to have a satisfactory explanation.

Second, you don’t seem to understand the theory. The theory says there are only so many transitions that can happen in the time since the universe came into existence and a random manipulation of complex molecules couldn’t have created the proteins necessary for life because they would require a great deal more transitions than have happened in the entire universe since its creation. Like it would take the universe to be many, many times older to create a single particular protein (in the entire universe), and there are millions of these proteins needed. So, we’re talking an impossibility that life exists without an ‘intelligent designer’.

So, there is a number 10^45 that doesn’t make sense (number of transitions allowed per second). You’re welcome to tell me why that makes sense or you’re welcome to tell me that it doesn’t make sense to you and I welcome you to ‘fix it’ since that what you think scientists do. Those are the two options for scientists according to, as being critical of a poorly formed theory doesn’t seem to be an option.
 
Monkey1976 said:
To those supporting ID as a legitimate science, I ask: How exactly would one falsify it? Evolution is simple to falsify, as has been pointed out: Find a modern form alongside early forms. How would one falsify ID?
Click to expand...
Posts 1167, 1181 and 1182 provide some clues.

If genetic decoding can arrive at something like an “interpretation” of the coding and layering of the coding, it might be possible to, say, find the pre-coding for later species embedded in the DNA of earlier species or perhaps it might be possible to make predictions that unlock future species. The issue is whether to treat DNA and RNA like a Rosetta Stone that contains a hidden and intelligent language or treat the coding as essentially an accidental genetic stew with no inherent “design” to it. Clearly the “random” proponents have one view of that option.

It seems clear, to me at least, that ignoring the possibility of design is a gross error. It may, in fact, be quite providential that we have vast computing power available today which might open just such a possibility of multilayer decoding and determining whether design is more than the “appearance” of it.

The problem, and it is with all such knowledge, is whether human beings are morally capable of handling that kind of access to the keys of life and what we will do with them. Kind of scary, actually, since our ability to understand ethical matters lags far behind our technical abilities, which makes me hope all the more that an Intelligent Designer be there to keep us from making disastrous errors.
 
When birds were evolving their nest building skills what percentage of eggs do you think they were able hang on to in their shoddy amateurish nest ? :):)🙂
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Who cares what others do? Rework the theory. Nobel Prizes have been won for small modifications in theories, resulting in enormous leaps of understanding.

With regard to some of the earlier discussions regarding chance, remember that when it comes to evolution, the only beings that can even come up with opinions on that chance is those that are the result of the small chance. If there are 1 x 10^100 planets in the universe, and only one has life, then guess what? The theory fits the observation (not that I necessarily subscribe to that POV).

Those arguing against evolution because of small chances also don’t have evidence against the possibility that we can be a result of small chance. Infinitesimally small doesn’t equal impossible. Unless those that are the possible result of such a small chance can come up with other life in the universe to prove their point, they simply have a hypothesis, and a weak one at that.
Click to expand...
First, you didn’t answer my specific question. You are given a theory and one aspect doesn’t make sense. You ask for an explanation and you cannot get one - the citations given do not match how the author is using it. What do you do?

I have tried to probe to get an explanation, but haven’t received a satisfactory answer. At this point, I am ready to dismiss the theory altogether as unfounded and not take any conclusions from it seriously, but you suggest a scientist would ‘fix it’.

Second, by your comments, I don’t think you understand the theory. The theory states there are a limited number of possible interactions that could have taken place since the beginning of the universe and using all those interactions wouldn’t have resulted in a single protein being formed (a statistically impossibility that it could be formed anywhere - similar to monkeys writing the works of Shakespeare), hence life must be developed by an ‘intelligent designer’.

Now, I don’t understand the 10^45 limits on transitions per second. I can’t get anything from the work, from the posters in the forum, etc. You are welcome to explain it to me if you think it makes sense. But, if it doesn’t make sense to you, I would like it if you could ‘fix it’ as that is what you say scientists do.
 
Techno2000 said:
When birds were evolving their nest building skills what percentage of eggs do you think they were able hang on to in their shoddy amateurish nest ? :):)🙂
Click to expand...
Why assume they were shoddy and amateurish? They could have been complex and elegant but extravagant and only recently “evolved” into simpler and more utilitarian designs in order to conserve “survival” energy and resources.

Why assume our concepts of “better” have anything to do with what evolution would determine as fitness for survival? Or that evolution is predictable?
 
Monkey1976 said:
To those supporting ID as a legitimate science, I ask: How exactly would one falsify it? Evolution is simple to falsify, as has been pointed out: Find a modern form alongside early forms. How would one falsify ID?
Click to expand...
Couldn’t you analyze statistics to determine if random chance is at least as probable as design?
 
:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:
Peter_Plato said:
Why assume they were shoddy and amateurish? They could have been complex and elegant but extravagant and only recently “evolved” into simpler and more utilitarian designs in order to conserve “survival” energy and resources.

Why assume our concepts of “better” have anything to do with what evolution would determine as fitness for survival? Or that evolution is predictable?
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism - See more at: evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia005061.html#sthash.V4amJ5cp.dpuf

Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism - See more at: evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia005061.html#sthash.V4amJ5cp.dpuf
Click to expand...
Yep, ID is certainly falsifiable: all one would need to do would be to demonstrate - either in the Lab or in a study of Nature - that irreducibly complex, functional, biological structures and systems could be constructed via random processes.

But, ID has not been falsified.

On the other hand, Darwinism - the notion that complex biological systems were constructed SOLELY by means of random, chance processes with no room for non-random events - has been effectively falsified by the studies of HIV, Malaria, and E.Coli which are documented in Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution.

In the case of HIV and Malaria, Nature herself conducted the experiment; in the case of E.coli, Richard Lenski conducted the experiment. And the results are in: Darwinism is falsified.
 
HansTrappist said:
But, ID has not been falsified.
Click to expand...
Nor has it been proven. Something that has not been proven false doesn’t not mean that it is true.

The problem with these discussions is one point is being proven true/false by one standard, and another point is being proven true/false by another standard.
 
Techno2000 said:
When birds were evolving their nest building skills what percentage of eggs do you think they were able hang on to in their shoddy amateurish nest ? :):)🙂
Click to expand...
That’s one of my issues. No transitional forms. All that’s found are fully functioning creatures, with full function, not half a nest-building ability.

Peace,
Ed
 
Monkey1976 said:
Small aside, here: Using particular code routines called “genetic algorithms”, it has been shown that evolved devices are not only possible, but their design and efficiency is beyond anything we could do on purpose. See my post #941 for details.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen similar. Biological solutions require a programmer.

Peace,
Ed
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I am watching a 2-hour lecture given by Kenneth Miller,
real scientist and ROMAN CATHOLIC, and it turns out
that Michael J. Behe, “Ph.D.,” is wrong:

I went and searched for that part
of lecture for your convenience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
Click to expand...
SPOILER ALERT! You’ve already decided that and the lecture hasn’t finished yet?

Shouldn’t you collect all the evidence first before making a judgement? Or is he “right” BECAUSE he is RC AND a “real” scientist as opposed to Michael Behe who is RC and not?

Is Miller “right” because he has proven his case or because of who or what he is? You do get that that is a fallacy, right?

Don’t get me wrong, I do think Miller has a point concerning “God of the gaps” reasoning that COULD get IDers into trouble, but, it seems to me, that we shouldn’t run from finding the truth about anything just because ID MIGHT be wrong and we might stumble into another gap.

What’s one more “God of the gaps” concession between friends?

We’ll be here with baited breath until you fill us in on what Dr. Miller has to say. 🤓
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top