Scientific definitions of "evolution"....

[Halbhh]

I think that you are confusing a couple things.
Not everything, has to be analyzed from the standpoint of a religious discussion.

The modern scientific theory of evolution, is based on
1. random mutation
2 natural selection.
(There are other emerging models....)

Obviously, this model of evolution is not a religious theology.
Apparently, this offends you.
But there is not need to be offended, because some model is not a religious model.

The Intelligent Design authors analyze the scientific theory of evolution,
specifically using mathematics and probability. ("Randomness" is a mathematical
concept.)

And the ID authors conclude that the modern theory of evolution, is not
mathematically feasible. Because, randomness is not powerful enough to
produce the complex, specified information that we see in the biological
world.

There is no need to be offended, that the ID argument is not an explicitly
religious argument. (But, apparently, you are.)

You should CERTAINLY NOT conclude that the ID authors are not
Christians. Most of them are.

Ah, just make fewer assumptions about the thoughts of other people.

Here I was surprised in that you actually have a 0% rate of correct guesses at my thoughts and attitudes and viewpoints (*), which is significant I think.

Normally a person might guess some things wrong if they make guesses about some other person's attitudes/views/thoughts, but when someone gets everything incorrect, that's something you really should consider -- you should try to figure out what's going wrong in your own thinking about other people.


---------
*

• 'Not everything, has to be analyzed from the standpoint of a religious discussion.' -- Of course I don't at all analyze everything/each topic as religious -- posting hundreds of posts about interesting non religious science things, as a look at my last 40 or 50 posts ought to show in abundance I expect.
• "Obviously, this model of evolution is not a religious theology.
  Apparently, this offends you." -- I'm not simply unoffended, but it's a form of ad hominem to try to paint me as offended (by something that in reality I enjoy). Imagine if someone accused you of being offended by science topics -- without any basis but their own internal wrong ideas of other people.
• etc.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[sfs]

However, for all sorts of mutations to be useful, biologically, we would
suppose that we should see many more configurations of proteins,
in nature, fulfilling functions. Those researching proteins, do not see
this.

Those researching proteins do in fact see function appearing spontaneously in random protein sequences, including binding and catalytic functions. Even in quite short peptides. I can give you a list of references if you're interested. It's a good thing that random mutations can produce functional proteins, because otherwise we'd all be dead from various pathogens. Random mutation followed by selection is precisely how your body creates antibodies specific for new microbial threats.

 

[Halbhh]

Those researching proteins do in fact see function appearing spontaneously in random protein sequences, including binding and catalytic functions. Even in quite short peptides. I can give you a list of references if you're interested. It's a good thing that random mutations can produce functional proteins, because otherwise we'd all be dead from various pathogens. Random mutation followed by selection is precisely how your body creates antibodies specific for new microbial threats.

Interesting to hear about how antibodies are developed past only the general level that invading proteins are broken into antigens and then B lymphocytes make antibodies -- hearing more detail on how this is accomplished would be interesting to me, if you could point me to some links to read more. Thanks!

 

[sfs]

Interesting to hear about how antibodies are developed past only the general level that invading proteins are broken into antigens and then B lymphocytes make antibodies -- hearing more detail on how this is accomplished would be interesting to me, if you could point me to some links to read more. Thanks!

This is a very brief introduction to the multistep process. It should provide enough information/key words for further investigation.

 

[Diamond7]

I would generically agree with you, on one point.
As many technical people have pointed out, there are only a limited
number of complex problems that can be described with a closed
form mathematical formula.

Algebras is limited I suppose. My son loves Algebras and he is an engineer. For me I like Geometry and as a carpenter I could not build anything without using Geometry. When we study the tree of life in Kabballah we see this is all mathematical. The symbolism of Sacred Geometry is universal and powerful. It is deeply rooted in our body, cell memory, and consciousness. Our DNA molecules measure 21x34 angstroms.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As the core intelligent Design authors point out, "evolution" as used by the hard sciences is based on random mutation.

In original Darwinism, mutation was taken to be happening in the whole biological organism.
In Neo-Darwinism, mutation was taken to happen in the DNA of biological organisms.

Both versions of "evolution" also include natural selection, of the most survivable organisms. (This is in one sense, an unfalsifiable concept. Whatever organisms survive, are said to be the most fit to survive.)


The arguments of the core Intelligent Design authors, is that randomness is not strong enough to produce the complex information that we see in biological organisms. and especially in DNA patterns, and molecular machines. This is a probabilistic argument, based on available resources.

I point out this dependency on randomness, because probability theory (and Computer science) uses the analysis of the power of randomness, to delineate what is probable, and what is not probable, and what is computable (in algorithms), and what is not computable.


Other definitions of "evolution" are not what the hard sciences are formally using.

There are all sorts of people discussing "evolution" as if it is an undefined process of how something, somehow, changes. But the scientific definition of evolution is based on randomness.

As an after-comment, required Christian doctrine (such as the Nicene Creed) requires only that we believe in God, maker of the heavens and the earth. There are no core Christian doctrines that require us to believe that a specific hard scientific model of "evolution" is true (that is, HOW God created the heavens and the earth). Before about 1900 (and Darwin's theory), we do not find Western Christians worried about HOW God created the heavens and the earth. It was not a core topic in Christian discussion. I suggest that modern Christians should return to that position.

As an after-comment, all the core Intelligent Design authors hold to an old earth model.

A mathematician worked out the odds of evolution causing the formation of our planet and the life on it by chance and the result was 1 to 1 + 40000 zeros. What this tells us is that It could never have happened scientifically.

 

[sfs]

A mathematician worked out the odds of evolution causing the formation of our planet and the life on it by chance and the result was 1 to 1 + 40000 zeros. What this tells us is that It could never have happened scientifically.

That's not something a mathematician could calculate, at least not in a meaningful way. To calculate the probability of life starting by natural processes, you have to know the possible paths it could have started by. We don't -- we simply don't know enough about chemistry to be able say whether life could start by chance or not.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That's not something a mathematician could calculate, at least not in a meaningful way. To calculate the probability of life starting by natural processes, you have to know the possible paths it could have started by. We don't -- we simply don't know enough about chemistry to be able say whether life could start by chance or not.

The only reliable account of the creation of the cosmos is from the person who was actually there at the time: the Holy Spirit. He was the eye witness, and He related what He saw and did to Moses. Everything else concerning the creation of the cosmos is pure guess work by people who don't want to acknowledge that God was involved. If they acknowledge that God was involved in creation, then they would have to be morally responsible to Him, and they don't want to do that.

 

[sfs]

The only reliable account of the creation of the cosmos is from the person who was actually there at the time: the Holy Spirit. He was the eye witness, and He related what He saw and did to Moses.

This has nothing to do with your statement about what some mathematician did. Would you care to defend that statement?

Everything else concerning the creation of the cosmos is pure guess work by people who don't want to acknowledge that God was involved.

Patently false -- everyone here is a Christian, and we all acknowledge that God was involved. That doesn't mean we all think that Genesis provides a literal, historical account of creation.

If they acknowledge that God was involved in creation, then they would have to be morally responsible to Him, and they don't want to do that.

I acknowledge that God was involved in creation and that I'm morally responsible to him, and yet I still think creationists are completely wrong. You could learn a lot about what other Christians think by talking to them rather than making up stories about them.