P
- Status
S
Sixtus
Guest
AnubistheJackal posted:
Probably because many scientists have been Catholics and in particular Jesuits
G
garysibio
Guest
Gerry,
Of course anyone can believe anything they want but that does not make their belief logical. The theory of evolution says that the changes have been the result of random mutations. Once you introduce God into the picture, the changes are no longer random. You now have intelligent design with God as the driving force behind evolution.
I believe that most people who introduce God into evolution do so because they believe that evolution is an incontrovertible scientific fact. I donāt believe that is the case. There are still way to many gaps in the fossil record, for one thing. There is also the problem that the very earliest fossils are very complex. Evolution also requires spontaneous generation. Somewhere along the line a bunch of chemicals that were not alive suddenly became alive.
If God used the process of evolution to create the universe, why does He tell us He did it in six days? I understand that the ancient Hebrews would probably not have understood evolution but why would God not just start off Genesis by saying āI created the universe. Donāt worry about how I did it.ā rather than making up an untrue account? If Gen 1 & 2 are not literal, what about Gen 6-8? What about the rest of Genesis? Jesus clearly took the account of Noah and the flood to be literally true (Matt 24:37). What about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brothers? How can we logically accept them as historical if we reject the beginning of the same book as non-historical?
And, while I hate to have to keep bringing it up, there is just no way of proving either evolution or creation. Origins is a matter of history, not science. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, even if you could prove that something could have happened, you cannot prove scientifically that it did happen.
Of course anyone can believe anything they want but that does not make their belief logical. The theory of evolution says that the changes have been the result of random mutations. Once you introduce God into the picture, the changes are no longer random. You now have intelligent design with God as the driving force behind evolution.
I believe that most people who introduce God into evolution do so because they believe that evolution is an incontrovertible scientific fact. I donāt believe that is the case. There are still way to many gaps in the fossil record, for one thing. There is also the problem that the very earliest fossils are very complex. Evolution also requires spontaneous generation. Somewhere along the line a bunch of chemicals that were not alive suddenly became alive.
If God used the process of evolution to create the universe, why does He tell us He did it in six days? I understand that the ancient Hebrews would probably not have understood evolution but why would God not just start off Genesis by saying āI created the universe. Donāt worry about how I did it.ā rather than making up an untrue account? If Gen 1 & 2 are not literal, what about Gen 6-8? What about the rest of Genesis? Jesus clearly took the account of Noah and the flood to be literally true (Matt 24:37). What about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brothers? How can we logically accept them as historical if we reject the beginning of the same book as non-historical?
And, while I hate to have to keep bringing it up, there is just no way of proving either evolution or creation. Origins is a matter of history, not science. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, even if you could prove that something could have happened, you cannot prove scientifically that it did happen.
S
Sixtus
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
It is not for you to determine other peopleās beliefs, and using brackets will not change that.
False. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life. Darwin called his book āOn the Origin of Speciesā, not āOn the Origin of the Universeā. If you want an explanation for the origin of the universe then ask a cosmologist.
Even within evolution, you are glossing over the role of natural selection which is most definitely a non-random process. The random mutations make for variations within a population, it is natural selection which amplifies the beneficial variations and diminishes the deleterious variations.
I was not repeating a proof, I was repeating an experiment. There is no absolute proof of any theory in science because all theories can be replaced.
First you need to show that life is designed. Secondly, no one says that randomness produces design, the appearance of design is produced by random mutation and natural selection. You are creating a strawman by leaving out the role of natural selection.
I do not. You are ignoring natural selection, so what you are criticising is not evolution.
Scientists do not like assumptions, so where possible they eliminate them.
No. It is the changes in that ratio which allow the dating method to work. If the ratio never changed than new rocks and old rocks would have the same ratio.
Not an assumption. Scientists plot isochrons, as explained in the Weins reference I gave, which eliminate the effect of any daughter produce originally present in the sample.
Not an assumption. Astronomers can measure decay rates in distant astronomical objects, all of which are the same as now. The fine structure constant has been shown to be constant out to ten billion years.
Again, using an isochron will detect this.
Your initial argument was that plants could not evolve photosynthesis. My point is extremely relevant to refuting your initial argument.
Bacteria have more than one source of energy. At first photosynthesis was one among many different sources so it was not essential. Even though it would have been inefficient it would still ahve been useful as an auxilliary process. Photosynthesis has evolved more than once as is shown by the fact that there are two different versions of photosynthesis in bacteria: Genomic Clues To The Evolution Of Photosynthesis.
I suggest that you read a copy of Beheās article Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. This article shows how even with a restricted set of evolutionary mechanisms it is possible to evolve IC mechanisms within a relatively short time. To quote from the abstract:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9.
It has long been known that IC systems can evolve.
rossum
E
East_Anglican
Guest
How has a thread on science turned into a thread on evolution?
Darwin said that evolution happened because of charachteristics becoming dominant because of environmental factors. Mendals theory of inheretance disagrees. The discovery of DNA proved Mendal right.
Of course, this does not disprove evolution or prove the Genesis account. But since when has The Bible been a science text book anyway?
F=MA because God made it so. God wrote the laws of physics and they are forever.
Darwin said that evolution happened because of charachteristics becoming dominant because of environmental factors. Mendals theory of inheretance disagrees. The discovery of DNA proved Mendal right.
Of course, this does not disprove evolution or prove the Genesis account. But since when has The Bible been a science text book anyway?
F=MA because God made it so. God wrote the laws of physics and they are forever.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Random mutations in a population but the driving force for evolution is natural selection. If the random mutation is not beneficial or at least neutral, it will not survive.
And you no longer have science.
Exactly. ID is a form of faith, not science. You put that very well!
For what? There will always be gaps unless we were somehow able to find the fossilized remains of every single organism that ever lived. Is that your required level of proof?
Not true, but even were it so, that would only indicate that ācomplexā organisms would be more likely to leave fossilized remains.
That is absurd. Evolution requires no such thing.
No proof in science. If you were taught that there is, you were mislead.
Strawman argument. You require science to be proven, but that is not a requirement that scientists would agree with.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, as a matter of fact, we do know. You donāt understand that radiometric dating is useless if one doesnāt understand the geology. That is one of the problems that creationists like Steve Austin have when they try to refute the science. He specifically used improper samples that he KNEW would give erroneous dates and yet he put forth the dribble that he had shown flaws in the process. In fact, no legitimate geologist would have sampled the way he did.
Believe it or not, geologists study rocks based on their physical characteristics, not just their age. You mentioned chemistry in your post. Do you not understand that the chemistry in the lab is also the chemistry in the field? Geologists do. We use that knowledge of chemistry to understand rock-forming processes. An enormous amount of time and effort goes into that. And guess what? We are pretty darned good at being able to tell the difference between an intrusive rock and a pillow lava.
You need to read Dr. Weinsā article that rossum has referred you to. You donāt understand the process.
Yes, there are occasional outlier values. When one is found, you try to understand why that value was obtained. If you canāt find a legitimate reason, you canāt just discard it.
True for fossils and sedimentary rocks. Not true for igneous or metamorphic rocks.
Peace
Tim
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
No, the theory of evolution does not say that at all. It says that existing organisms arose from pre-existing organisms. The theory itself says nothing about mechanisms.
And there are at least two mechanisms cited in elaborating the theory, that is, trying to explain how it had its effect. Random mutation is indeed one, but natural selection is also invoked. The interplay between the two (and some others) is an interesting study.
By the way, I hold to intelligent design, but because of faith, not because of science. The fact that science does not contradict intelligent design, and can provide some support for it, is interesting, but secondary and peripheral.
That is precisely why I view the contributions of science to the question of intelligent design as interesting, but secondary and peripheral.
Thereās a trap here, and the anti-abortion folks got tangled in it in the early years of their work. They said, āLook at nature, and you will see incontrovertible proof that itās wrong.ā People looked, and the findings were a long way from providing āincontrovertible proof,ā (many species destroy the weaker of their young in hard times, for instance) and they took a big hit in credibility. It is incredibly dangerous to try to significantly underpin moral and philosophical positions with arguments from science. Science wasnāt formulated to do that, is lousy at doing it, and just leaves the methodology ā and therefore credibility ā of those who seek to so misuse science open to attack.
Blessings,
Gerry
R
ricmat
Guest
- Definitions are importantā¦it seems that there are different working definitions for āevolutionā. My understanding is that evolution (at least Darwinian Evolution, which is the one most people refer to) postulates a mechanism of random mutation AND natural selection. I didnāt read this whole thread, so perhaps others have been mentioned. A few decades ago, the most popular way to explain evolution was to imagine an infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards for an infinite amount of time to produce all the works of Shakespeare.
- With regard to item 1 above, hereās a quote from this article. This example is used to show just how unlikely the random mutation thing is given any less-than-infinite amount of time:
Code:
KAZDNHF OPZSJHQL ZXFNVEven the simplest DNA is, of course orders of magnitude more complex than the string above.
Comments? Is this calculation bogus?
- Most opponents of intelligent design simply dismiss it as ācreationism in disguiseā, despite the fact that ID accepts the evidence of age of the universe, simple organisms becoming more complex over time, etc. as valid.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Well, as a scientist, Iām not in the least bit interested in so-called āworking definitions.ā They tend to be distillations of ignorance, and definitely do more harm than good. And no, evolution as Darwin wrote about it did not cite two mechanisms. In fact the selection part is attributable to Wallace, so that evolution through natural selection is known as the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. As for the possibility of randomness being at the genesis of the theory, Darwin wasnāt even a scientist; he was a ānaturalistā who couldnāt have hacked that math needed to deal with the randomness thing, much less formulated it, given that genes, chromosomes, crossing over, recombination, and random assortment during gametogenesis were unknown to him ā or to anyone around him at the time.
Nothing wrong with the calculation. But if it is truly random, then it is as probable as any other, including one that would make a sentence. Once again, then we are back to philosophy: Is it reasonable to assume that, say, a sentence arose through a random process?
Be careful playing with sequences. They can bite. In the Sagan-driven SETI search, someone pointed out a potential problem. If one measured radio sequences that numerated into the digits of pi (314159265 etc), the conclusion would be randomness, based on mathematical tests. Likewise with the āsequence plus oneā in each position (425260376 etc). But if they mixed, and their difference were detected, it would be (11111111 etc). Random? YES!!! But look at what would be observed.
As for ID as a scientific hypothesis, balderdash! It cannot be falsified, and if it cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific hypothesis, full stop. Remember: the universe was created 3 seconds ago, but in state that makes it (and us) appear much older. Prove otherwise. That, by the way, isnāt a scientific hypothesis either, because it canāt be proven false.
God created, and revealed that he is a God of order and supreme intelligence. Thatās the basis for my belief in intelligent design, and science has not a wit to contribute to it. Science significantly contributes to neither proving nor falsifying it.
Blessings,
Gerry
Nothing wrong with the calculation. But if it is truly random, then it is as probable as any other, including one that would make a sentence. Once again, then we are back to philosophy: Is it reasonable to assume that, say, a sentence arose through a random process?
Be careful playing with sequences. They can bite. In the Sagan-driven SETI search, someone pointed out a potential problem. If one measured radio sequences that numerated into the digits of pi (314159265 etc), the conclusion would be randomness, based on mathematical tests. Likewise with the āsequence plus oneā in each position (425260376 etc). But if they mixed, and their difference were detected, it would be (11111111 etc). Random? YES!!! But look at what would be observed.
As for ID as a scientific hypothesis, balderdash! It cannot be falsified, and if it cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific hypothesis, full stop. Remember: the universe was created 3 seconds ago, but in state that makes it (and us) appear much older. Prove otherwise. That, by the way, isnāt a scientific hypothesis either, because it canāt be proven false.
God created, and revealed that he is a God of order and supreme intelligence. Thatās the basis for my belief in intelligent design, and science has not a wit to contribute to it. Science significantly contributes to neither proving nor falsifying it.
Blessings,
Gerry
R
ricmat
Guest
- For discussions with regular people and reading press articles, āworking definitionsā are extremely important - IMO. Why canāt we talk about [random mutation + natural selection] even if thatās not your formal definition of evolution? Thatās what the atheists attempt to use as a lever.
- I never said that Intelligent Design was a scientific hypothesis. I asked how others defined it - mainly in order to see if they actually understand what it is theyāre bashing, instead of the straw man that usually gets bashed. BTW - evolution (as in random mutations + natural selection) canāt be falsified either, unless you have a universe at your disposal (and a control) and want to wait a few billion years to see what happens. ID mainly points out evidence for design in nature, and doesnāt pass itself off as a full fledged theory of everything - thatās another straw man that the opponents set up.
- I believe in intelligent design from a religious perspective, as you do. I also believe the encyclicals (fides et ratio? or maybe it was verititas splendor) which state that ultimately science is not the enemy of religion, and both will eventually lead to the same conclusions about our origins.
- Different subject - āScience proving thingsā is notoriously fickle. What we donāt know far exceeds what we do really know. Is the sun really a nuclear furnace powered by gravity? Is there really such a thing as black holes? Dark matter? The Ether?
R
rossum
Guest
The calculation is correct numerically, but it has no bearing on evolution because it does not model the process of evolution. It is a straw man, also known as the ātornado in a junkyardā.
Evolution works on populations, so the calculation needs to start from a population of individuals with variations:
KA DNHFBOP JHYL TTFNV
AAZTNHZZ PZSKLQL ZTFPV
ā¦
BBXDNHFKLO SYEQVYAQ NV
Each generation the best of these varations will tend to increase in frequency (more offspring) and new variations will be introduced by mutations. If you code this up on a computer you can get to the target string in a few hundred generations. There are already examples available, see the Weasel program for referrences.
For a longer discussion of the calculation of the probability of evolution, see my piece on the Evolution of Boojumase.
rossum
R
ricmat
Guest
Although I have an interest in all this, itās not my specialty. In terms of the original example I provided, I thought it was more to illustrate the improbability of primordial atoms / molecules forming a very basic form of DNA - not the probability of starting with already complex DNA and then mutating it, e.g. starting with an elephant with a short snout and getting one with a longer snout.
If your argument still applies - Iāll take your word for it.
Hereās a different off-the-wall idea that occurred to me - but I donāt have the background to take it very far. This will probably be viewed as an ID or creationist argument, but hear me out. [You biochem experts can laugh, but itās fun to speculate]
What if:
- Some primordial DNA contained either the DNA for all subsequent life forms (which would appear to us now as junk DNA), and different combinations of āactive DNAā just needed to be activated, e.g. by environmental factors or random alpha particle hits?
2 . What if primordial DNA was formulated such that ārandomā mutations almost always resulted in a new, āhas advantages regarding natural selectionā lifeforms?
R
rossum
Guest
The earliest life was almost certainly much simpler than what we have now. DNA did not arrive until well down the road. DNA was probably preceded by the RNA world. Scientists are still working on what preceded the RNA world.
If a piece of DNA has no current function then natural selection does not remove mutations in that piece of DNA. Over time any such DNA that was present in the genome would degrade through random mutations into rubbish.
Initially life would have been very simple and not well adapted so there would have been relatively more chance of a beneficial mutation. Once life had become better tuned then the chances of a beneficial mutation would drop, since many of the good ones would already have happened.
You can see something of this when a species moves into a new environment - there is a period of relatively fast evolution as the mutations that make it more suited to its new environment get spread through the population by natural selection. There is a good example in Butterfly shows evolution at work, a new parasite changed the environment, and the butterfly has adapted within six years.
rossum
S
Sixtus
Guest
A major problem that I have with random natural selection of evolution [rather than intelligent design] is that I am still looking for the random mutations which led to a P51 D North American Mustang. I have yet to find it. I am beginning to think that maybe it just does not exist
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Well, itās official. This thread isnāt about science any more. Nothing here this population geneticist can relate to.
- Status