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

[edwest]

I find it highly strange to give blind, unguided chance, or the blind watchmaker, any credit. It is not elegant or goal oriented. It spits out life forms and keeps spitting them out. Those that survive, survive, and those that don’t, don’t. Hardly an explanation.

Take a generic snake. Let’s say it had only two large fangs at first. A bad bite depending on the size of the target. Then, mysteriously, it develops a combination of chemicals that happen to be harmful or fatal to other creatures. A gland also mysteriously develops to store the toxin. The fangs mysteriously change from fully solid to injectors of the venom. A lot of explaining to do do, but it’s all explained away. An unintelligent, random force called evolution not only started the process but directed it every step of the way, even though it is blind and undirected.

 

[Atreju]

Thanks Ed, I’m going to use your post as a case study in what I’m talking about, with how acceptance or denial of evolution affects apologetics. I hope you don’t mind, I will be fairly critical in detail, but we’ve had some good conversations I don’t want you to think I don’t like you or anything

I find it highly strange to give blind, unguided chance, or the blind watchmaker, any credit. It is not elegant or goal oriented.

This depends on what you mean by “goal oriented”. I have used genetic or evolutionary algorithms in my own professional work, and I think I can illustrate how these can be superior to other methods. I perform statistical analysis for a large financial services company, often using computer programming. Without going into too much detail, there are situations when I want to write a program which will use a massive amount of data and choose between tons of different variables to produce some Ideal Solution for a given situation. Now, I do have the ability write a program that can get me to that solution, with a lot of trial and thinking on my part. Or, I could write an evolutionary program that will find a solution for me, given some fitness parameters. It starts at some point which is basically just my blind guess, then randomly mutates off of that point, selecting solutions that are more ‘fit’, casting off less fit ones, then mutating again, and so on, until it produces a very precise solution. The program had no idea what the solution would be, but came to it blindly. Now, there are two great benefits here. First off, the evolutionary program often finds more efficient solutions than I would ever think of. This is not so relevant because God is omniscient and could find any solution he wanted to. Secondly, and more importantly for my idea of elegant evolutionary creation, I can run this exact program in a number of totally different situations and it will find precise solutions for each one. I write one program, and I get as many solutions as I have problems. Similarly, instead of specifically creating millions of different species, God creates one process that produces millions of species. A vibrant masterpiece with one stroke of the brush.

Some references if you want to read more into this type of programming:

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

And a fun video that demonstrates the concept with Mario (though this is actually a lot more advanced programming than anything I do).

note that he wrote one program, and that program will figure out a way to solve any level of Mario. Much more impressive than writing a different program for each level, in my humble opinion!

 

[Atreju]

Those that survive, survive, and those that don’t, don’t. Hardly an explanation.

It’s a great explanation if you understand it. Do you understand that there is a mutation element? This is what I’m talking about with people not actually understanding what they’re talking about, because you don’t appear to understand that there is a mutation element, and that is the key to the entire thing. No wonder you don’t think it’s a good explanation, if you don’t understand the explanation at all. And how are you supposed to convince other people that the explanation is wrong if you don’t understand it at all?

Take a generic snake. Let’s say it had only two large fangs at first. A bad bite depending on the size of the target. Then, mysteriously, it develops a combination of chemicals that happen to be harmful or fatal to other creatures. A gland also mysteriously develops to store the toxin. The fangs mysteriously change from fully solid to injectors of the venom. A lot of explaining to do do, but it’s all explained away. An unintelligent, random force called evolution not only started the process but directed it every step of the way, even though it is blind and undirected.

So you know it took me less than 3 seconds to do a google search on the evolution of snake venom. You seem to think you are smarter and more knowledgeable on this subject than all the world’s biologists, and yet you don’t know enough to even do a simple google search. You also still seem to be ignoring genetic mutation, which explains a lot of these “mysteries” you seem to be misunderstanding.

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Loading…

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[edwest]

I am very familiar with this sort of work but it requires an intelligent agent. A similar program was used to design a structure for use in space and human engineers were asked to do the same thing. One of the solutions produced by the machine was radically different than one of the designs produced by humans. Various stress tests were made on the machine design and it was better. It still had a few problems that extended outside of the parameters of its given design requirements. I do not know if it was actually used aside from offering an alternative design.

 

[edwest]

“You seem to think you are smarter and more knowledgeable on this subject than all the world’s biologists, and yet you don’t know enough to even do a simple google search. You also still seem to be ignoring genetic mutation…”

I am the lead researcher where I work and a researcher of the development of technology. However, your strange assumption is simply an emotional reaction. There is no reason that humans today should not look like lizard men because a “mutation” went one way and not the other. Nothing explained yet.

 

[Atreju]

There is no reason that humans today should not look like lizard men because a “mutation” went one way and not the other. Nothing explained yet.

This is just ridiculous. Nothing in biological evolution says we should be lizard men. Please find me one reputable biologist who says biological evolution predicts we should be lizard men.

I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere here because despite giving you informative links you’re still repeating very incorrect information, but I hope my posts are useful for other people.

 

[Techno2000]

First off, the evolutionary program often finds more efficient solutions than I would ever think of.

Can you wait millions of years for this to happen ?

 

[rossum]

Can you wait millions of years for this to happen ?

Erm… You need to call the computer repair people. If your computer takes millions of years to run an evolutionary algorithm then it is not working correctly.



rossum

 

[Rob2]

So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…

I agree .

The predominant scientific findings do point to natural evolution , though they do not prove it .

That God created and continues to create by means of evolution sounds fine to me .

 

[Atreju]

So did you like not bother with the links or anything?

 

[Aloysium]

I could write an evolutionary program that will find a solution for me, given some fitness parameters.

I’m interpreting your post as you’re saying that whatever you mean by evolution was designed.

Some of the issues involved with evolution have to do with the soul of things and the mind. These are united in a creationist view that understands that what is being created are existential realities, be they atoms or you yourself as a complex unity of being in the person. We were first created in Adam, having no parents other than God Himself, and being more than a collection of molecules. He was humanity as we are all, together united in the mystical body of Christ. Without that essential information, science is in the dark about who we are and how we got here. In spite of all the stuff we can manipulate, we are so far in science from the truth.

 

[Aloysium]

The predominant scientific findings do point to natural evolution

I believe them to point to creation. Go figure.

Common sense does also, given that random change due to the inherent properties of chemical substances, be it due to radiation, toxins, viruses or the simple reality of noise in any process (what happens in the copying and recopying of any document, mentioned above by Buffalo), corrupts the information. And to say that killing off what doesn’t fit is creative, as trial and error demonstrates, the creativity lies elsewhere.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere here

Not if you are unwilling to learn, to step outside the box that provides your world-view, you won’t. Be skeptical of what you believe; open your mind to other possibilities.

 

[Atreju]

Common sense does also, given that random change due to the inherent properties of chemical substances, be it due to radiation, toxins, viruses or the simple reality of noise in any process (what happens in the copying and recopying of any document, mentioned above by Buffalo), corrupts the information.

This is factually incorrect. This is the problem with “armchair science” ie relying on “common sense” to tell you what happens or what is possible instead of actually learning something.

 

[Techno2000]

So did you like not bother with the links or anything?

The point is a computer works fast, so-called macroevolution takes millions of years.

 

[Atreju]

Depends on the length of the generation. But for mammals, sure. So does the creation of planets and stars.

 

[Aloysium]

This is factually incorrect. This is the problem with “armchair science” ie relying on “common sense” to tell you what happens or what is possible instead of actually learning something.

So you’re telling me if you photocopy a document, and copy that copy and so on one thousand times, the end result will be at least as legible as the first and likely contain more information. That’s not what I refer to as common sense. Nor is it sensible to not put on sunscreen, nor to use such solvents as benzene in a closed room without gloves; it is not reasonable for a pregnant woman to visit Brazil currently.

I wish people would stop talking to themselves, telling others that they should be “learning something” when they have absolutely no idea with whom they are conversing. Discuss the argument.

 

[Atreju]

Lifeforms aren’t documents.

 

[Atreju]

This is like saying “if I squeeze a piece of paper really hard, it will never make light, so the sun can’t be producing light through fusion and fission reactions. It must be magic.” You aren’t demonstrating an interest or basic knowledge of what you’re trying to criticize.

 

[Atreju]

Put it this way: you are saying that all genetic change is negative, and cannot result in equally viable or more viable organisms. If this were true, every single dog would be exactly the same, genetically, or “corrupted”. But we can breed all kinds of dogs because genetic mutation does not automatically lead to corruption or unviability. So your analogy about photocopying just leading to a mess is ridiculous and reveals a very poor understanding of even the most basic concepts.

Now you will say something about “kinds” but that is a very different complaint than your previous one about genetic mutation being necessarily harmful (and is also revealing of basic misunderstandings).