Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[William_Scott]

Bradskii, as to being a fundamentalist–if that’s what you’re implying–I are one (please don’t confuse me with any namby-pamby pushovers who claim to be fundamentalist, but aren’t real crazy eyed fundies like me).

 

[William_Scott]

I’m such a crazy fundy that I think Roman Catholics got it right in rejecting birth control–and I’m Protestant…

 

[William_Scott]

That would be the theory of the Big Bang as proposed by cosmologists. How does this relate to evolution? Remember that Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the origin of Species, Life, the Universe and Everything ” Biological evolution explains the origin of species; just the origin of species.

Just because some people make the error of reading too much into it does not mean that the rest of us have to.

Actually, I think you’re wrong and I’m right (how’s that for an effective response).

As surprising as it may seem (given my primitive understanding of the universe), I am aware that cosmological and biological evolution are distinct.

However, the same naturalistic faith that necessitates the biological evolution mythology likewise necessitates abiogenesis, and the cosmological evolution mythology (I can attest from experience that it’s almost as silly as biological evolution). It all comes by necessity in one big naturalistic dogma package. Any supernatural intervention in the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life or the evolving of said life is really just ID or creationism masquerading as “real” science (in other words, just God of the gaps).

You either have a universe that neatly created itself and all things therein from non-existence (natural laws, matter, life, consciousness and opposable thumbs) or you have a universe that was created by supernatural means. Of course, I believe science necessitates with a great shout the Eternal God’s creation of the cosmos, including life which reproduces only after its kind. But then again, I’m just a practitioner of a primitive sheep herder religion and unable to comprehend modern man’s glorious discovery that if you wait long enough rocks really do become people–and cats, dogs and gerbils.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m such a crazy fundy that I think Roman Catholics got it right in rejecting birth control–and I’m Protestant…

Why do I think I’ve been transported to a ‘Young Ones’ sketch?

Please tell me you’re not going to keep this up for the duration.

 

[rossum]

However, the same naturalistic faith …

I find it fascinating that some Christians who want to criticise science try to make it look like a religion: “faith”. That implies that they consider religion to be inferior to science, because likening the parts of science they don’t like to religion is to criticise those parts of science.

… that necessitates the biological evolution mythology likewise necessitates abiogenesis, and the cosmological evolution mythology (I can attest from experience that it’s almost as silly as biological evolution). It all comes by necessity in one big naturalistic dogma package.

There you go again: “dogma”. You really do seem to think that religion is inferior to science.

Science gets its power from concentrating on what it is good at: the material world. Science does not attempt to determine whether God, Allah, Vishnu or Amaterasu created the universe, all it does it to look at the methods He or She used. You will not find God in a biology textbook. Nor will you find Allah in a physics textbook. Each subject sticks to its own remit, just as a French language textbook will not include a history of the American Civil War.

Any supernatural intervention in the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life or the evolving of said life is really just ID or creationism masquerading as “real” science (in other words, just God of the gaps).

No, it is merely outside the remit of science. For those topics you need a theology textbook. A science book would require scientific evidence that Thor was responsible for thunder, not Zeus. Science likes to have scientific evidence to support its claims.

You either have a universe that neatly created itself and all things therein from non-existence (natural laws, matter, life, consciousness and opposable thumbs) or you have a universe that was created by supernatural means.

That is a false dichotomy. As a Buddhist, my universe is eternal, requiring no creator. As a scientist I am happy with ideas like the multiverse or similar, which spawned this and many other universes. You are attempting to limit options to just two, when there are more options to be considered.

Of course, I believe science necessitates with a great shout the Eternal God’s creation of the cosmos, including life which reproduces only after its kind.

One thing that the Abrahamic God did not do was to create life. He did not create Himself, and He is a “living God”. At best, He created the second living thing, since He Himself is the first.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

it’s the best scientific explanation

Evolution is not a scientific explanation. It is an interpretation of the scientific data by modern society to explain our origins as emergent organisms in a natural material world. As much as Intelligent Design is considered pseudoscience, no less is evolution.

Addressing the two pillars of the theory, we see firstly that there is no mechanism that truly explains the complexity and diversity of the genome, as the central component of the overall anatomic and physiological structure of the cell, especially in its role as a building block of animals with their interrelated organ systems. In contrast to what is obvious, what we are told to believe is that random genetic changes operating at a molecular level are at the basis of the growing complexity and diversity of living forms that we observe in time.

Natural selection, which operates at the level of the phenotype, involves the holistic system that is the individual organism, existing and interacting within its environment. At this point the “science” loses its connection with the material; what is happening is of a different order than the chemistry and physics, which are viewed as the fundamentals of the natural world. Such considerations involve what is traditionally spoken of as the soul. Underpinning evolutionary theories is that naturalistic understanding that this reality is an emergent feature of matter, rather an overriding organizational principle. While relegating such considerations to the metaphysical, they are nonetheless inherent assumptions of this ultimately materialistic theory. God either creates and environment, replete with a variety of interacting forms, individual and components of a larger whole, all of it capable of great diversity, or the system evolved that way. This is philosophical, not science. Additionally, either this in which we participate is the way it is for utilitarian reasons - survival, or it is an expression of God’s glory, marred by original sin which infected the entire system that is creation.

If one places God at the centre in understanding how this all came to be, the basic scientific facts make far more sense than the current mythos of evolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

IWantGod:

it’s the best scientific explanation

Evolution is not a scientific explanation. It is an interpretation of the scientific data by modern society to explain our origins as emergent organisms in a natural material world. As much as Intelligent Design is considered pseudoscience, no less is evolution.

Addressing the two pillars of the theory, we see firstly that there is no mechanism that truly explains the complexity and diversity of the genome, as the central component of the overall anatomic and physiological structure of the cell, especially in its role as a building block of animals with their interrelated organ systems.

This is a belief of yours and not a statement you have supported. Why can’t variation produced by cosmic rays over millions of years produce the kind of changes you describe? Just because they exceed your imagination does not mean they don’t exist.

Natural selection, which operates at the level of the phenotype, involves the holistic system that is the individual organism, existing and interacting within its environment. At this point the “science” loses its connection with the material; what is happening is of a different order than the chemistry and physics, which are viewed as the fundamentals of the natural world. Such considerations involve what is traditionally spoken of as the soul.

No, we are not talking about the soul. Natural selection does operate on the phenotype, but if two phenotypes differ in only one molecular genome change, the natural selection is effectively selecting for that one genome change.

 

[Aloysium]

Why can’t variation produced by cosmic rays over millions of years produce the kind of changes you describe? Just because they exceed your imagination does not mean they don’t exist.

Why do you put on a vest that covers from your thryroid to your gentitals when you go for xrays? How about sunscreen? It’s wise to use gloves In a ventilated environment when using solvents like benzene because? An understanding of the causes of genetic mutation have led to many public health measures. Reason informs us that anything effecting an organized system is not going to produce greater organization. But, I do understand the belief system that you describe. Just saying that it makes sense only to believers.

As an aside, I would add that an argument is not furthered by insults to the other person’s intelligence. It actually has the effect of providing a clue as to what are likely the issues being projected.

And yes there would be a difference between the two genomes. The one whose parent was subjected to radiation that caused a mutation of its genome consequently would be unable to reproduce because of what is happening at a level that is of a different order than that of the physical - the totality of the particular organism’s relationship with the environment and other members of its species. While all is composed of atoms, the organization of what is going on involves the capacity to search and consume food, avoid dangers and attract a mate.

 

[bveritas]

No, it’s a common nonsense argument. The evidence does not support radical changes from species to species due to the irreducible complexity of physiological structures and the impossibility of these occurring accidentally and randomly when their gradual development would serve no life sustaining physiological purpose. The “seven days” oif creation story is a metaphor that implies that we should recognize multiple epochs in God’s creative plan, including His creation of new species whenever He sees fit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Why can’t variation produced by cosmic rays over millions of years produce the kind of changes you describe? Just because they exceed your imagination does not mean they don’t exist.

Why do you put on a vest that covers from your thryroid to your gentitals when you go for xrays? How about sunscreen?

The fact that most mutations are neutral or deleterious does not preclude the possibility that a few of them may be beneficial. This is essential to the understanding of how natural selection works to favor only those mutations that are beneficial.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolutionism utilizes the science of the times, as all have and will do, to present modern society with a myth is that appeals to its fundamental beliefs - materialism and utilitarianism. It isn’t science, but an interpretation of science to fit the current zeitgeist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Evolutionism utilizes the science of the times, as all have and will do, to present modern society with a myth is that appeals to its fundamental beliefs - materialism and utilitarianism. It isn’t science, but an interpretation of science to fit the current zeitgeist.

And right there is where you abandon science and turn to labeling as an alternative to arguing.

 

[Techno2000]

The evidence does not support radical changes from species to species due to the irreducible complexity of physiological structures and the impossibility of these occurring accidentally and randomly when their gradual development would serve no life sustaining physiological purpose.

Right…and start to adding up all the transitional life forms that evolution had to produce to get the 10 million species we have today, and the odds are overwhelmingly against random mutations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

bveritas:

The evidence does not support radical changes from species to species due to the irreducible complexity of physiological structures and the impossibility of these occurring accidentally and randomly when their gradual development would serve no life sustaining physiological purpose.

Right…and start to adding up all the transitional life forms that evolution had to produce to get the 10 million species we have today, and the odds are overwhelmingly against random mutations.

Another non-mathematical and totally intuitive use of the term “odds”. There is a real field of probability in mathematics and statistics. It is well-developed. Too bad it is not being used here.

 

[Bradskii]

… the impossibility of these occurring accidentally and randomly…

It’s not random. And the fact that it’s not random is one of the cornerstones of the theory. And you indicate your lack of knowledge of the subject by stating that it is.

The question then arises as to why (and how) you can argue against something that you don’t understand. It’s like claiming that Pythagoras’s theorum is wrong when you don’t know understand what a triangle is.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

bveritas:

The evidence does not support radical changes from species to species due to the irreducible complexity of physiological structures and the impossibility of these occurring accidentally and randomly when their gradual development would serve no life sustaining physiological purpose.

Right…and start to adding up all the transitional life forms that evolution had to produce to get the 10 million species we have today, and the odds are overwhelmingly against random mutations.

Another non-mathematical and totally intuitive use of the term “odds”. There is a real field of probability in mathematics and statistics. It is well-developed. Too bad it is not being used here.

When are we going to start see something actually evolve into a completely new creature, or do we have to wait another 4 billion years .

 

[rossum]

The evidence does not support radical changes from species to species due to the irreducible complexity of physiological structures

You need to keep up with the latest ID research. Evolution can produce irreducibly complex systems. Even Professor Behe has recognised this. According to his paper: Behe and Snoke (2004) a simple IC system can evolve in a small population of bacteria in about 20,000 years.

While it is more difficult, and slower, for evolution to produce an IC system, evolution is perfectly capable of producing IC systems by an indirect route. Professor Behe was correct to say that evolution cannot make an IC system by the direct route. He missed the fact that it is possible by indirect routes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

When are we going to start see something actually evolve into a completely new creature, or do we have to wait another 4 billion years .

You won’t. If you want a completely new organism than you can’t use DNA, amino acids etc. and you won’t get that from evolution on earth. The best you will see is a partly new organism, of which we have plenty. You yourself are an example, since your DNA does not match the DNA of any other human on earth, so you are partly new yourself.

For something completely new, you will need to look for some sort of alien life. Fred Hoyle’s The Black Cloud is an example of a completely new lifeform.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Note that Fred was a much better astronomer than he was author.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

bveritas:

The evidence does not support radical changes from species to species due to the irreducible complexity of physiological structures and the impossibility of these occurring accidentally and randomly when their gradual development would serve no life sustaining physiological purpose.

Right…and start to adding up all the transitional life forms that evolution had to produce to get the 10 million species we have today, and the odds are overwhelmingly against random mutations.

Another non-mathematical and totally intuitive use of the term “odds”. There is a real field of probability in mathematics and statistics. It is well-developed. Too bad it is not being used here.

When are we going to start see something actually evolve into a completely new creature, or do we have to wait another 4 billion years .

If you would be so kind as to specify exactly what you mean by “a completely new creature” I might venture a guess as to how long we would need to wait. If you say “bacteria into bambi” I’m afraid you might have to wait that long.