Evolution

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Morphy

So what you're basically saying is that evolution has some natural boundaries, namely, 'kinds' cannot be crossed. So why don't you enlighten me where are those boundaries. Come on - maybe god intervenes when somewhere suddenly adenine is replaced with guanine what could create gene specific to different 'kind'? :chuckle:

Show me the natural boundaries. I'm waiting.

we have only becone to understand.

breed a dog and a lion

breed a horse and a cow

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Morphy

Seems logical. As a matter of fact - if I was a god and wanted to explain to primitive people how evolution created all species, I'd do it exactly like bible does: in the beginning there was sea with simple creatures, then life emerged from the ocean to newly created islands and finally a man has appeared.

or explain Creation

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

So, bw, what does evolutionary theory take away from God besides a woodenly literal interpretation of the Old Testament?

who created life?

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

PureX,

If I were eligible to do so, I'd pick this as a POTD. There is no inherent conflict between faith in God and evolution. There is a conflict between a woodenly literal interpretation of the Old Testament and evolution. Big difference.

:thumb:
i can do that

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by brother Willi

:thumb:
i can do that

when i try , i get

Page cannot be found:think:

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by brother Willi

we have only becone to understand.

breed a dog and a lion

breed a horse and a cow

No good, bW. Take two glasses of cream. Pour them together in a larger glass. What do you have? Cream, no different from what you started with.

Now put that cream in a bread maker with a wire whip attachment(?!?). Run it for five minutes. What do you have? Butter and buttermilk. Both very different from their common ancestor. Neither of which can be recombined, like their ancestors. But you can always mix in more butter with your butter and you'll have butter; same with the buttermilk.

Moral of the story: just because lions and dogs are really different today doesn't mean their ancestors have always been so different, and just because they can't interbreed today doesn't mean that their distant ancestors couldn't.

 

[aharvey]

Me: "So, bw, what does evolutionary theory take away from God besides a woodenly literal interpretation of the Old Testament?"

Originally posted by brother Willi

who created life?

Evolutionary science doesn't say a peep about "who created life." It barely says anything about how life originated, much less whether this was under divine control. "Making no assumptions about God" is not the same as "Making the assumption of no God." Science has to do the former; it cannot do the latter.

The conflict, I tell you, lies in the woodenly literal interpretation of the OT. Unless you have another specific creation story in mind.

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

No good, bW. Take two glasses of cream. Pour them together in a larger glass. What do you have? Cream, no different from what you started with.

Now put that cream in a bread maker with a wire whip attachment(?!?). Run it for five minutes. What do you have? Butter and buttermilk. Both very different from their common ancestor. Neither of which can be recombined, like their ancestors. But you can always mix in more butter with your butter and you'll have butter; same with the buttermilk.

Moral of the story: just because lions and dogs are really different today doesn't mean their ancestors have always been so different, and just because they can't interbreed today doesn't mean that their distant ancestors couldn't.

find the path back to "one"

you will find it is "kinds"

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

Me: "So, bw, what does evolutionary theory take away from God besides a woodenly literal interpretation of the Old Testament?"



Evolutionary science doesn't say a peep about "who created life." It barely says anything about how life originated, much less whether this was under divine control. "Making no assumptions about God" is not the same as "Making the assumption of no God." Science has to do the former; it cannot do the latter.

sound VERY limited then

The conflict, I tell you, lies in the woodenly literal interpretation of the OT. Unless you have another specific creation story in mind.

pick one, we can talk bout it

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by brother Willi

we have only becone to understand.

breed a dog and a lion

breed a horse and a cow

Could you explain what you mean?

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by aharvey

No good, bW. Take two glasses of cream. Pour them together in a larger glass. What do you have? Cream, no different from what you started with.

Now put that cream in a bread maker with a wire whip attachment(?!?). Run it for five minutes. What do you have? Butter and buttermilk. Both very different from their common ancestor. Neither of which can be recombined, like their ancestors. But you can always mix in more butter with your butter and you'll have butter; same with the buttermilk.

Moral of the story: just because lions and dogs are really different today doesn't mean their ancestors have always been so different, and just because they can't interbreed today doesn't mean that their distant ancestors couldn't.

Man, that was excellent. I wouldn't put it better.

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Morphy

Man, that was excellent. I wouldn't put it better.

i did

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by brother Willi

find the path back to "one"

you will find it is "kinds"

Sounds like you're describing the evolutionary view here: i.e., number of "kinds" = "one." Is that possible?

Originally posted by brother Willi

sound VERY limited then

Not because it makes no assumptions about God; an assumption is by definition a limitation of what you're willing to consider. Fewer assumptions= fewer limits.

Originally posted by brother Willi
pick one, we can talk bout it

The only one that matters is the one that you're pitting against the evolutionary model, and only you know what that is.

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Morphy

Could you explain what you mean?

you will find our history goes back to "kinds" not "one"

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

Sounds like you're describing the evolutionary view here: i.e., number of "kinds" = "one." Is that possible?

nope

"one" did create "kinds", but we see that "one" differently

Not because it makes no assumptions about God; an assumption is by definition a limitation of what you're willing to consider. Fewer assumptions= fewer limits.

sound VERY limited

to find the truth, should ALL posibilities be explored?

The only one that matters is the one that you're pitting against the evolutionary model, and only you know what that is.

i had a link to creation stories from around the world.

they all echo the same thought

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by brother Willi

sound VERY limited

Science has limits. So does religion. So does any form of human inquiry.

Originally posted by brother Willi

to find the truth, should ALL posibilities be explored?

All that can be, yes. I've tried very hard to explore the Creationist story, but it starts and ends with a few OT verses that leave out virtually the whole story, and what's left fits very poorly with the evidence we do have. So that exploration seems not to be well suited to rational scientific inquiry.

Originally posted by brother Willi

i had a link to creation stories from around the world.

they all echo the same thought

" OOPS!...Oops!.....Oops!...Oops!...Oops!......" ?

 

[Morphy]

BTW:

I'm still waiting for creationists to refute my thesis:

If we know that:

1. genes can change over time
2. changes can be passed to posterity and
3. enviroment favours some specific trails

then we can figure out that life evolves... It is pretty clear and consistent. And what we actually can see perfectly corroborates that theory - and one of the best examples is growing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It has nothing to do with god! If you think it is otherwise - show me a better explanation...

If you think evolution is absurd - why don't you find a mistake in the above thesis???

Unless somebody of you finds any mistake in the above thesis you have to admit that evolution is possible.

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

Science has limits. So does religion. So does any form of human inquiry.

yep
human->Willi

All that can be, yes. I've tried very hard to explore the Creationist story, but it starts and ends with a few OT verses that leave out virtually the whole story, and what's left fits very poorly with the evidence we do have. So that exploration seems not to be well suited to rational scientific inquiry.

well, lets talk
look for thred on genesis

" OOPS!...Oops!.....Oops!...Oops!...Oops!......" ?

:doh: :chuckle:

hey, my puter crashed

i lost some links

i might find it again

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Morphy

BTW:

I'm still waiting for creationists to refute my thesis:

again

If we know that:

IF
IF
IF

1. genes can change over time

genes is genes
the order ever change and live to be a new "kind"

2. changes can be passed to posterity and

variety in "kinds"

3. enviroment favours some specific trails

like its planned somehow

then we can figure out that life evolves... It is pretty clear and consistent. And what we actually can see perfectly corroborates that theory - and one of the best examples is growing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It has nothing to do with god! If you think it is otherwise - show me a better explanation...

If you think evolution is absurd - why don't you find a mistake in the above thesis???

Unless somebody of you finds any mistake in the above thesis you have to admit that evolution is possible.

admit what exactly???

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Abiogenesis is used most because it is the biggest hurdle to get over for evo to start. Why evo's claim that abiogenesis is outside of evo theory is an indictment of the theory.

Originally posted by Morphy
Wait untill we discover simple life forms outside the Earth (maybe on Europa - a moon of Jupiter).

Ahhhh… yeah… right…

Hate to break the news to you, but even if we find life on outside of Earth, it will still be way too complicated for evo to have created it. And by complicated, that includes not only high information, but high energy as well.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
But post-protocell arguments are valid against evo, too.

Originally posted by Morphy
I don't know any tenable... All I've gathered so far can be refuted very easily.

If one wants to accept that a protocell could become a human through mutation and natural selection then any story becomes that which easily refutes any common sense… you think time helps you?

Originally posted by Morphy
I don't think laymen should restrain from disputing such questions. Although I was very intrested in cosmology when I was in secondary school I don't think I can hold such debate. But the theory seems very consistant and comprehensive. The strongest evidence against was that if there really had been bing bang there should have been a background radiation in the entire universe. After a few years we found it, since that time no astrophysicist dares to criticize it for the evidence in favor are overwhelming.

No astrophysicist dares to criticize it for fear of losing their job. And, no, I cannot prove that. But there are enough scientists that doubt the Big Bang that eventually we'll get a better picture of what is really out there.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
The SLoT is a very fundamental principle, and although its effects can easily be seen and explained, the mechanics are very complicated; so lay people can see how it works, and through experience intuit how it will be a difficult for evo to explain away, but they cannot explain the mechanics of it. It's too bad. But we (mankind) will eventually get a theory that will show that not only is going from primitive protocell to a more complex cell an uphill reaction (even more uphill if you talk non-life to life reaction), but the energy claimed to do it will cause more harm than good. I'm a layperson, I can't tell you how. Call it a prediction of YEC.

Originally posted by Morphy
I don't think you undrestand the molecural principles of genetics and that is why you quote false theories...

I don't think molecules defy the SLoT, do they?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
So all the things I mentioned don't prove creation, but they are an argument against evo.

Originally posted by Morphy
Which one??? Just give me one good argument against evolution.
Are genes able to change spontaneusly? Are. Can these changes be passed to posterity? Can. Does enviroment promote some changes? It does. What else do you need to prove evolution takes place???

A good argument against evo is that the DNA is variable to only a certain degree after which the organism can no longer sustain any more change and be the fittest. It will prove that evo cannot take place.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
I think that's what should be focused on. Even if we don't prove creation, please please please use some common sense and at least say, "Well then, we just don't know how we got here" and leave it at that. Because as science progresses we are getting to the point where evo is becoming not just doubtful, but absurd.

Originally posted by Morphy
You know, actually, the more I learn about sociology, biology and genetics the more I am convinced that evolution is one of the best proved theories ever...

Okay. My opinion is the opposite.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
And again, forget the evidence for creation. At least admit that evo is scientifically impossible. Don't agree to the illogical just because of some internal need to explain how we got here. Just be content that we exist, realize that evo doesn't affect your life and move on.

Originally posted by Morphy
Where did you get that???
I'm telling you: just give me one (one is enough!!!) tenable, consisted argument agains evolution. One is enough.

The DNA cannot have an uphill reaction. In order to go from nothing to protocell, or protocell to human, you must have an uphill reaction somewhere. Of course, uphill reactions are possible in situations. But the reaction for evo to work is so far uphill, and the amount of energy required so great, that the amount of energy could never be used to allow this uphill reaction without causing other damaging reactions that destroy any progress to make an organism from nothing or an organism that is a protocell into a human.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
My point is that not only is evo not consistent, it isn't even reasonable.

Originally posted by Morphy
Quite otherwise.

It is only reasonable if you believe that the enzymes (read 'machine like process') that allow DNA to work just happened in nature. And I don't mean just exist, I mean exist as part of the system.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
And one more thing, you claim the Catholic Church argued for a flat earth in medieval times. What are you talking about? Can you point me to some info that backs up that claim?

Originally posted by Morphy
Catholic church official 'scientific doctrines' were different and sometimes really strange. Not only did they harm science severly but also condemned many people to death - like for example Galileo Galilei. Fortunately they don't repeat these mistakes anymore and catholic church don't oppose science anymore.

Galileo was condemned to death? Are you sure about that? Do you have any information on these 'scientific doctrines' of the Catholic Church? Please be more thorough about your explanation, I've never heard of some of this stuff. Also, you didn't actually give us any evidence at all about the Catholic Church's belief in a flat earth. Can you complete that request for information, and also the information on the new topics you've brought up?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Information theory is foundational to evo, and thus most relevant to current evo theory. I'll admit it isn't important to biologists, but that will come in time. It's math, not biology.

Originally posted by aharvey
Hey, there's a lot of math in biology, and we can delve pretty deeply into it when we need to, as I did when you first brought this up. As we've discussed before, the information theory arguments against evolution confound two very different versions of information theory, and the nature of the arguments depend entirely on using assumptions and definitions from one version in the context of the other, even thought these assumptions and definitions are specifically disallowed in the second.

First, yes, as my father has his degree in biology, I know there is a ton of math involved. He is better at math than I am. However, it seems the math dealing directly with Information Theory is not a part of a biologist's training.

I've only ever brought up Shannon's information theory. I've heard of other information theory, but I've not looked into it much. I think you are remembering a thread conversation with someone else.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Abiogenesis is used most because it is the biggest hurdle to get over for evo to start. Why evo's claim that abiogenesis is outside of evo theory is an indictment of the theory.

Originally posted by aharvey
As I've stated more than once, it's hardly surprising that we don't know very much about something that happened, once, at least 4.5 billion years ago, once, on a microscopic scale, once, somewhere on the 5.1 X 10^14 square meters of the planet's surface (actually, you'd want a volume estimate here, but I don't have one), once.

So what if it happened once a long time ago. Evo should have at least an idea for a mechanism.

Originally posted by aharvey
That's why I haven't been able to generate a lot of interest in abiogensis; it's something of a fool's errand, and even if someone figured it out, I don't see how that would change the way we do much of anything. YECs know this as well as scientists do, and that's why they attack it with such zeal. Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that all life that we know of today descended from a single common ancestor, even if we don't know anything about that common ancestor, or its ancestors. If we find life that is not DNA-based, for example, then we might have to reassess that view.

That isn't right. If we did have a mechanism for abiogenesis, that would be a blow to YEC. I think we'll find the laws of physics prevent it. Call that another YEC prediction.

Originally posted by aharvey
In any case, I've never heard you or anyone else here make the same argument against, say, the theory of gravity. I've asked that several times, with no answer that I can recall.

Are you asking how gravity came about naturally? Protogravity? I don't think I'm getting your question.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
But post-protocell arguments are valid against evo, too.

Originally posted by aharvey
Nice of you to slip that one in here. Can you be more specific?

I'm not slipping anything in. I'm saying that the problems with pre-protocell are the same, but greater than post-protocell. How else was I to state it?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
The SLoT is a very fundamental principle, and although its effects can easily be seen and explained, the mechanics are very complicated; so lay people can see how it works, and through experience intuit how it will be a difficult for evo to explain away, but they cannot explain the mechanics of it. It's too bad. But we (mankind) will eventually get a theory that will show that not only is going from primitive protocell to a more complex cell an uphill reaction (even more uphill if you talk non-life to life reaction), but the energy claimed to do it will cause more harm than good. I'm a layperson, I can't tell you how. Call it a prediction of YEC.

Originally posted by aharvey
Well, usually predictions follow from hypotheses, which follow from theory, so this can't really be a prediction of YEC, at least given that the underlying theory doesn't exist yet. However, if you can explain how this follows from YEC, I'm most interested.

We theorize that SLoT has been functional since the beginning of creation. We hypothesize that since DNA has so much information and is such a high energy molecule, that it could not have been allowed by SLoT naturally. So YEC's can predict that when we find out how to build a DNA from scratch, that trying to do it by adding more energy to the system until it finally works will result in: "the energy claimed to do it will cause more harm than good".

Now can I have my prediction?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Irreducible complexity is largely an appeal not to emotion, but more toward common sense. It isn't an emotional appeal to see a watch on a beach and assume it was made by somebody. And the same faulty premise argument can be made for that watch situation; but it won't convince most people – and they will be right, not you. But it isn't a hard science by a longshot, like math. I'll grant you that.

Originally posted by aharvey
I wasn't really talking about Paley's watch, but irreducible complexity, the argument that complex structures can't have evolved because we can't do single-step reverse-engineering of complex organisms. At least somewhat different set of faulty premises, I think, and not so much common sense in IC. But I do agree that the strength and weakness of the Paley's watch argument is its total reliance on "common sense." My introduction to ID came when a guy named Dr. Brian Miller (I think; it's been a couple of years) came to campus and gave a talk about it. When I asked him how you actually ascribe a design (in the ID sense of the word) component to a complex structure, he said, and I quote, "Well, you know it when you see it." When I pressed him on this, he said that there were some very smart people working on this and he was hopeful they'd have an answer soon…

Yes, Paley's watch is not the classical irreducible complexity argument. But the watch really is a "you know it when you see it" argument for IC. It just isn't formally presented that way. The faulty premise you mention; would that happen to be the "we cannot explain it, so it couldn't have happened naturally" premise?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
So all the things I mentioned don't prove creation, but they are an argument against evo. I think that's what should be focused on.

Originally posted by aharvey
I can see why you would feel this way, because at the moment YEC lacks a theoretical basis, a robust set of predictions, and positive supportive evidence of any kind.

YEC lacks a theoretical basis. YEC lacks a robust set of predictions; I won't call the 2 I've cited as robust. I won't even argue YEC supportive evidence at this time. But what I'm asking is that we be intelligent and take the first step to understand that when a theory has so much evidence against it, to abandon it. If the most popular competing theory is unacceptable, then ignore the competing theory and don't put so much emphasis in caring about the need to explain where we came from.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Even if we don't prove creation, please please please use some common sense and at least say, "Well then, we just don't know how we got here" and leave it at that.

Originally posted by aharvey
Hmm. Do you mean "how we (i.e., living organisms) got here" or "how we (i.e., humans) got here"? Assuming you mean the former, I've tried that, and it doesn't seem to satisfy y'all. In fact, read a few lines up. Aren't you specifically arguing in this same post that evolution needs to be able to show how life started?

Both. The only reason for insisting on a pre-protocell mechanism is because you insist on the existence of a protocell. Forget the protocell; it can't happen. Just go through life and when someone wants to know the origins of life, say you don't know and keep typing.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Because as science progresses we are getting to the point where evo is becoming not just doubtful, but absurd.

Originally posted by aharvey
Which brings me back to my very first post to TOL. Tell me, when you say "evo," are you talking about population level changes in genotype frequencies over time, speciation, or the transition from one created kind to another? Or something else?

Something else. Evo, specifically, from a post long ago, I defined as a change at the phylum level, where a single ancestor can be shown to have developed into 2 different phylums (phyla?), or where one phylum can turn into another.