Scientific definitions of "evolution"....

[Stephen3141]

Some things are beyond their ability to do the math. Usually become of complexity. It is amazing how much is done with fifth and eighth-grade math. There are limitless opportunities for people who can actually function at an 11th-grade level. The Amish quit school in the eighth grade. So as carpenters, they are pretty primitive.

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. In that sense, mathematics cannot describe
very much, especially about the biological world.

But, the arguments used by the Intelligent design authors, are VERY
mathematically computable. Such as the odds of a protein, being
produced by random mutation.

Computing the "odds" of something happening randomly, does not involve
advanced math.

Christians should not assert that conclusions about biological "evolution"
cannot be examined on the basis that the math is too complex. The math
is really pretty simple.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would disagree with your use of "randomness".

In picking a winner for the Mega lottery, a random number generator
(in software) would be used. Each lotto number, has an equal probability
to be chosen. So we can compute the "odds" of any one being chosen.

As a biological chemist (in the ID movement) such as Michael Behe would
point out, "randomness" in chemistry involves probabilities of a chemical
entity coming about, given the probabilities of the chemical subcomponents
of the entity, happening together. "Randomness", does not mean that all
chemical reactions have the same probability.

This is a scientific definition of "randomness", which follows what we would
call "the laws of nature".

I have no idea what definition of randomness, you are using.
I think that you are confusing "randomness", with "without design".
As the ID writers use the term, randomness is a mathematical
concept that is based on prior probabilities. And prior probabilities
of an outcome, depend on what sort of event you are talking about,
and what the components of that event are.

Do you believe anything can happen without being caused to happen? How does such a thing happen?

By the way, random number generators are cyclical. And 'true random number generators', while they are no more cyclical than the phenomenon they are driven by (such as atmospheric noise) still are caused to generate numbers by that atmospheric noise, which itself is not random.

 

[sfs]

And 'true random number generators', while they are no more cyclical than the phenomenon they are driven by (such as atmospheric noise) still are caused to generate numbers by that atmospheric noise, which itself is not random.

That depends on the generator. Some of them are based on quantum phenomena, which are indeed random.

 

[sfs]

But, the arguments used by the Intelligent design authors, are VERY
mathematically computable. Such as the odds of a protein, being
produced by random mutation.

Computing the "odds" of something happening randomly, does not involve
advanced math.

Calculating the probability of a protein being produced by random mutation does not require advanced math. It does, however, require knowledge of many factors that we do not in fact know. We can calculate the probability of a given protein being produced by mutation from a protein that differs from it by only one amino acid, although even that calculation is not trivial because of the redundancy of the genetic code. Calculating any more challenging case doesn't require just math -- it requires empirical knowledge of things like the number of proteins that could serve the same function and the fitness effect of all possible precursor proteins. Doing so is far beyond current scientific knowledge. Which is probably why ID authors talk about calculating that kind of probability but never actually do so.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That depends on the generator. Some of them are based on quantum phenomena, which are indeed random.

Nope. Quantum phenomena are unpredictable by us —not random.

 

[sfs]

Nope. Quantum phenomena are unpredictable by us —not random.

That's a claim without current scientific support.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm not denying that God created the universe.

What we are discussing, is HOW God created the universe.

He spoke it into being ... our tiny minds find it difficult to understand that.

 

[Laodicean60]

I believe in science and as a Christian, I won't bet my salvation on one particular theory because we don't know what happened during ancient times. But science says humans are a distinct species through modern DNA testing. God reveals to us slowly or until our peanut brains catch up to God through modern test equipment and science.

"Prehistoric humans were sexual adventurers, mating with Neanderthals and Denisovans, but DNA studies reveal dalliances with populations we never knew existed"

Traces of mystery ancient humans found lurking in our genomes

Prehistoric humans were sexual adventurers, mating with Neanderthals and Denisovans, but DNA studies reveal dalliances with populations we never knew existed

www.newscientist.com

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's a claim without current scientific support.

That it is random, is a claim without support. The fact we don't know the causes is no indication that the phenomenon is without cause.

 

[sfs]

That it is random, is a claim without support. The fact we don't know the causes is no indication that the phenomenon is without cause.

It's not just that we don't know the cause. It's that we know that if there is a cause, that cause has to violate special relativity -- it requires a theory of nonlocal hidden variables. While it's impossible to rule out such a theory, there is also no reason to think it's correct, whereas there are very strong reasons to think that special relativity is correct.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's not just that we don't know the cause. It's that we know that if there is a cause, that cause has to violate special relativity -- it requires a theory of nonlocal hidden variables. While it's impossible to rule out such a theory, there is also no reason to think it's correct, whereas there are very strong reasons to think that special relativity is correct.

So far, right up to quantum mechanics, anyway. Problem with the notion is that while some are claiming it is without cause, science can't help but continue to look for the cause(s), to understand what is going on. The Law of Causation is, after all, axiomatic for reasoning, so far. And there is no proof that the self-contradictory notion of causation by mere chance is operating here. It only looks like it to those who can't see the cause(s).

 

[sfs]

The Law of Causation is, after all, axiomatic for reasoning, so far.

That does not seem to be a widely accepted philosophical position. See here, for example.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That does not seem to be a widely accepted philosophical position. See here, for example.

I looked at it, and right off the bat, human presumption.

You do understand, do you not, that "probability" is a question of guesswork, and not of actual fact? Empirically, we have never seen more than one thing come of a supposed "probability". I say this, tongue-in-cheek, because I know how the human mind works, but you can't show me where that goes wrong.

Our minds are not only limited, but presumptuous.

 

[Laodicean60]

It's not just that we don't know the cause. It's that we know that if there is a cause, that cause has to violate special relativity -- it requires a theory of nonlocal hidden variables. While it's impossible to rule out such a theory, there is also no reason to think it's correct, whereas there are very strong reasons to think that special relativity is correct.

My 2 cents and I'm not sure if this is helpful to your discussion.

"In the theory of general relativity, the concept of causality is generalized in the most straightforward way: the effect must belong to the future light cone of its cause, even if the spacetime is curved. New subtleties must be taken into account when we investigate causality in quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory in particular. In those two theories, causality is closely related to the principle of locality. Bell's Theorem shows that conditions of "local causality" in experiments involving quantum entanglement result in non-classical correlations predicted by quantum mechanics".

Causality (physics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Halbhh]

The goal of the Intelligent Design researchers, is to critique the current
SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution. The creation account in Genesis, is NOT the
current scientific theory of evolution.

Secondly, the goal of the Intelligent Design researchers is to use the
formal logic, and the discussions of philosophy (also using formal
logic), to demonstrate the credibility of an intelligent designer of
this universe. (Quoting the creation account from Genesis, is VERY
DIFFERENT from scientifically demonstrating the reasonableness
of an intelligent designer, creating the physical universe.)

Those who argue that the Intelligent Design authors should go back to the
Genesis account of creation, are missing the point of the ID authors.

I think by 'evolution' you actually might mean instead the mere added spin of anti-Christian atheists that try to paint (repaint in a false way) any natural 'evolution' as somehow being possible to ever happen without God....

As if something could happen in the Universe God created without it being His design, His intention, that it happen.

Of course, to try to paint any natural process as somehow happening without it being God's design is merely (only just) an assertion that God doesn't exist.

When you hear any atheist claiming or suggesting that somehow evolution would be not from God, that's not different at all from merely claiming/asserting "God doesn't exist."

But those of us who believe in God as creator can instantly realize that anything that happens naturally in the Universe God created is doing what God intended.

If some natural physical process would happen in the Universe without it being God's design, then the Bible would be false to say that all things were created through Christ, that all things are created then from God, in John chapter 1.

Look and see -->
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So, therefore, for those that believe in Christ, all natural events of any kind are entirely God's own design and work.

His.

Only an atheist would think or say that 'evolution' somehow is independent of God, then.

I say to fellow believers: "Don't buy into atheist assertions." on this topic. Don't accept their trick to just believe or assume that evolution isn't God's work.

Don't buy what they are selling.

The entire debate about 'evolution vs creation' is a mere illusion. They are necessarily the same -- all that happened is from God, His work.

 

[sfs]

I looked at it, and right off the bat, human presumption.

You do understand, do you not, that "probability" is a question of guesswork, and not of actual fact? Empirically, we have never seen more than one thing come of a supposed "probability". I say this, tongue-in-cheek, because I know how the human mind works, but you can't show me where that goes wrong.

Our minds are not only limited, but presumptuous.

I see that in this thread you're simply stating your opinions. You're welcome to them and I have no interest in discussing them.

In any case, this side discussion has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. In the context of mutations in evolution, 'random' doesn't mean 'ontologically random' or even 'without an outcome that's predictable by humans'. Its meaning in this context is sometimes expressed as 'random with respect to fitness'. That is, organisms have no way of choosing to have beneficial rather than neutral or deleterious mutations. All of them occur and they are sorted out by natural selection.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I see that in this thread you're simply stating your opinions. You're welcome to them and I have no interest in discussing them.

In any case, this side discussion has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. In the context of mutations in evolution, 'random' doesn't mean 'ontologically random' or even 'without an outcome that's predictable by humans'. Its meaning in this context is sometimes expressed as 'random with respect to fitness'. That is, organisms have no way of choosing to have beneficial rather than neutral or deleterious mutations. All of them occur and they are sorted out by natural selection.

Fair enough.

 

[Stephen3141]

Do you believe anything can happen without being caused to happen? How does such a thing happen?

By the way, random number generators are cyclical. And 'true random number generators', while they are no more cyclical than the phenomenon they are driven by (such as atmospheric noise) still are caused to generate numbers by that atmospheric noise, which itself is not random.

I am using a modern, scientific, mathematical definition of "randomness".

I am not addressing the topic of causality.

As far as random number generators go, it is accepted that they produce output that
simulates randomness. This is a simple expression of statistical density, of outputs.
How random number generators produce their output, is not relevant.

 

[Stephen3141]

I think by 'evolution' you actually might mean instead the mere added spin of anti-Christian atheists that try to paint (repaint in a false way) any natural 'evolution' as somehow being possible to ever happen without God....

As if something could happen in the Universe God created without it being His design, His intention, that it happen.

Of course, to try to paint any natural process as somehow happening without it being God's design is merely (only just) an assertion that God doesn't exist.

When you hear any atheist claiming or suggesting that somehow evolution would be not from God, that's not different at all from merely claiming/asserting "God doesn't exist."

But those of us who believe in God as creator can instantly realize that anything that happens naturally in the Universe God created is doing what God intended.

If some natural physical process would happen in the Universe without it being God's design, then the Bible would be false to say that all things were created through Christ, that all things are created then from God, in John chapter 1.

Look and see -->
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So, therefore, for those that believe in Christ, all natural events of any kind are entirely God's own design and work.

His.

Only an atheist would think or say that 'evolution' somehow is independent of God, then.

I say to fellow believers: "Don't buy into atheist assertions." on this topic. Don't accept their trick to just believe or assume that evolution isn't God's work.

Don't buy what they are selling.

The entire debate about 'evolution vs creation' is a mere illusion. They are necessarily the same -- all that happened is from God, His work.

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.

 

[Stephen3141]

Calculating the probability of a protein being produced by random mutation does not require advanced math. It does, however, require knowledge of many factors that we do not in fact know. We can calculate the probability of a given protein being produced by mutation from a protein that differs from it by only one amino acid, although even that calculation is not trivial because of the redundancy of the genetic code. Calculating any more challenging case doesn't require just math -- it requires empirical knowledge of things like the number of proteins that could serve the same function and the fitness effect of all possible precursor proteins. Doing so is far beyond current scientific knowledge. Which is probably why ID authors talk about calculating that kind of probability but never actually do so.

It is true that we do know everything, about biological function.

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.

For randomness to produce complex proteins, "useful" configurations
would have to be hundreds of orders of magnitude more common, than
what biologists detect, in real life. And, this disparity, suggests that
very few protein configurations produce a useful function, as they are
not preserved through natural selection.