Mathematicians PROVE evolution IMPOSSIBLE.

[JacksBratt]

To all involved here.

I have read these debates, that spring up often here on CF. There is never, that I know of, a conversion of one belief to the other.

I can understand when people who have no belief in a creator argue that all of this universe had to happen by chance and randomness. In their case, there has been infinite time in order for this to occur.

However, when I really get confused is when people who claim to be Christians and believers in an Omnipotent God start saying that this random formation of life took place. That all organisms are, in fact, chance results of random changes in DNA over huge amounts of time.

This is very confusing to me. I can see things changing over time. Different types of dogs, cats, cows etc... even plants are changed by pollination, into different GMO produced strains.

But, the dogs are always different dogs, cats different cats and cows different cows.

The biggest problem though, is not this. The biggest problem is a small detail called "life".

Whatever it is, whatever this force is that causes cells to divide and not decay. This force, that once removed, all cells break down and decay away.

What is this force, where did it come from. Why has nobody ever created it?

Combine that with the fact that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent...and He lives outside the constraints of all of these physical laws and properties...
AND He said He did it..... He has the ability to do it..

Why would a Christian say He didn't do it?

I have read articles by Christians who believe solidly on evolution. I have read articles by Christians who denounce evolution outright.... all being well educated and intelligent PhD's and such.

So, if the PhD's cannot come to a conclusion on this. And they never will..... I'll just go with "God said He did it. God could easily have done it, So, God did it". Just like He said.

Now, if you want to tell me that He could not have done it just as it is stated in Genesis, and explain to me WHY He could not have done it just as it is stated in Genesis... I'm all ears.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian Gangster Evolutionist Catholic. There's a first for everything, I guess.

Yep. I got the name years ago, when I was posting on a board where many atheists hung out. Most of them were all right, but one particularly aggressive one finally had enough of me, and told me that I had no idea how "barbaric" Christianity is.

So I turned the other cheek and said "then call me the barbarian." The name stuck. I'm not all right with the world, but I am trying to be as good an imitation of Christ as I can be. The name reminds me how the world regards us.

 

[The Barbarian]

However, when I really get confused is when people who claim to be Christians and believers in an Omnipotent God start saying that this random formation of life took place. That all organisms are, in fact, chance results of random changes in DNA over huge amounts of time.

I've heard creationists say things like that, but anyone even casually acquainted with biology would know that no evolutionist would say it was "chance results of random changes in DNA over huge amounts of time." Darwin's great discovery was that it is not a random process.

"People are generally down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

 

[sfs]

However, when I really get confused is when people who claim to be Christians and believers in an Omnipotent God start saying that this random formation of life took place. That all organisms are, in fact, chance results of random changes in DNA over huge amounts of time.

Okay, there's lots to unpack in this post. First, every Christian I've ever met confesses that God is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, and that includes all living things. The only question is whether evolution is the means, or one of the means, by which he created the diversity of life. Second, as the barbaric Catholic has pointed out, Darwinian evolution only occurs when natural selection filters random changes, meaning that it's not just randomness.

Third, "random" means something pretty specific in this context. It says nothing at all about whether there is some divine purpose behind the changes. There are Christians who think that God sovereignly uses genuine randomness -- events whose outcome he doesn't know -- as part of his creation, and others who think God is strictly and providentially in control of all events. That's a theological and philosophical discussion that has no bearing on the science of evolution.

As far as the science is concerned, what "random" normally means is that we can't predict the precise outcome. In evolution, it also means that the particular changes are not governed by the needs of the organism; that is, that both beneficial and harmful changes occur, through natural means, and that natural selection weeds out the bad ones. This kind of randomness is seen repeatedly in non-evolutionary biology. Your body creates antibodies to respond to a new virus by generating lots of random proteins and picking the ones that bind to the virus; then it mutates those randomly and again picks the ones that work best. The immature brain has lots and lots of random synapses connecting neurons; part of developing and learning consists of pruning many of them to leave functional ones behind. So there is nothing surprising about God using "random" processes as part of the development of his creation.

But, the dogs are always different dogs, cats different cats and cows different cows.

And primates are always different primates -- like humans and chimpanzees. To the casual observer, a chihuahua and a Great Dane differ more than a human and a chimpanzee do.

The biggest problem though, is not this. The biggest problem is a small detail called "life".

Whatever it is, whatever this force is that causes cells to divide and not decay. This force, that once removed, all cells break down and decay away.

What is this force, where did it come from. Why has nobody ever created it?

There is, as far as humans can determine, no life force. Life appears to be active chemistry. That's all. You can freeze cells and stop the chemistry in its tracks, and then thaw them and they'll resume business as usual. As for why we can't make life in the lab -- it's really, really complicated chemistry, all of which have to be working at the same time. We can reproduce each part in the lab -- DNA replication, cell membrane production, protein synthesis, you name it. We can completely replace the DNA of a cell with synthetic DNA and have it keep working. But putting it all together from scratch into the tiny package of a cell is just technically difficult.

Why would a Christian say He didn't do it?

I have no idea. What Christian says God didn't do it?

Now, if you want to tell me that He could not have done it just as it is stated in Genesis, and explain to me WHY He could not have done it just as it is stated in Genesis... I'm all ears.

Again, I've never met anyone who believed God couldn't have done it any way he chose. The question is, what does the evidence tell us about how he did do it?

 

[Anguspure]

Chloroquine resistant malaria is definitely a fact, a fact that has led to the death of millions. (Drug resistance in malaria is one of the things I study.) Abiogenesis is not part of evolution at all, and I agree that how animal body plans arose is not a fact. What I would consider a fact is that animals with different body plans descended from a common ancestor.

A "fact" that has no demonstrable way of being a fact is not a fact but a hypothesis that has no evidence.
Given that how body plans arose is not a fact, you can at best only believe that it happened from common descent as an article of trust in your theory.

 

[sfs]

A "fact" that has no demonstrable way of being a fact is not a fact but a hypothesis that has no evidence.

Quite true. On the other hand, an event for which there is abundant evidence is what we call a fact. Since common descent is in the latter category, I call it a fact.

 

[Anguspure]

I've heard creationists say things like that, but anyone even casually acquainted with biology would know that no evolutionist would say it was "chance results of random changes in DNA over huge amounts of time." Darwin's great discovery was that it is not a random process.

"People are generally down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

Another Evolutionist equivocation.

Of course Natural Selection in itself is not random, but on Naturalism the only identified mechanism of genetic change that Natural Selection can act on is random mutation.

Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the proposed process of evolution (called a fact by the Evolutionist) is a random process.

 

[Anguspure]

Quite true. On the other hand, an event for which there is abundant evidence is what we call a fact. Since common descent is in the latter category, I call it a fact.

All of the evidence certainly shows common origin, whereas examples of so called "convergent evolution" and other observations that confuse the mythical tree of life, provide serious problems for the theory of common descent.

Common origin is, I think, agreed on by all parties to the discussion and could therefore be regarded as a given fact. But common descent? Way to many problems to be convincing.

 

[sfs]

Common origin is, I think, agreed on by all parties to the discussion and could therefore be regarded as a given fact. But common descent? Way to many problems to be convincing.

The world's biologists -- including the great majority of believing biologists -- disagree with you. Who do you think knows more about the evidence, you or them?

 

[sfs]

Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the proposed process of evolution (called a fact by the Evolutionist) is a random process.

That random (in the biological sense) mutations happen can reasonably be called a fact. That random mutations culled by natural selection are responsible for the evolution of life isn't a fact, as far as I'm concerned. I consider common descent to be a fact, but not the mechanism, which is what you're talking about. Who calls the latter a fact?

 

[HenryM]

Mutations that occur frequently appear often as differences between the two species; ones that occur rarely appear rarely. Parts of the genome where mutation occurs more rapidly also show greater differences between the species.

Why do you suppose that's the case?

I suppose I don't care. If God created us from monkies, I'm ok with it. It would certainly shine more light on some things here on Earth. But we don't have the word that He did it. So I'm reserved, all things considering.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I've heard creationists say things like that, but anyone even casually acquainted with biology would know that no evolutionist would say it was "chance results of random changes in DNA over huge amounts of time." Darwin's great discovery was that it is not a random process.

"People are generally down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

Another Evolutionist equivocation.

Sounds like an excuse about to be tossed up at us...

Of course Natural Selection in itself is not random

Nor is evolution by natural selection. That was Darwin's discovery.

but on Naturalism the only identified mechanism of genetic change that Natural Selection can act on is random mutation.

Here's a way to test that:
Roll three dice, 100 times. Each time add up the three numbers. Graph the results. Is it a random distribution? And yet it was generated by randomly rolling dice.

Therefore it is reasonable to consider that the proposed process of evolution (called a fact by the Evolutionist)

It's directly observed. Can't be more factual than that.

is a random process.

See above. Do the experiment yourself, and tell us what you get. It will be a revelation for you.

 

[Rob_macneal]

I am serious . Deal with the video and God

God makes some people "too smart" for their own good. Hence: Stephen hawking. It's agreed pretty widely that he is a smart individual. He comes out every so often claiming there is or isn't evidence for god. I think he makes 'some' too smart for their own good, for one reason or another.
God bless!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

God makes some people "too smart" for their own good. Hence: Stephen hawking. It's agreed pretty widely that he is a smart individual. He comes out every so often claiming there is or isn't evidence for god. I think he makes 'some' too smart for their own good, for one reason or another.
God bless!

Ummm are you saying Hawking isn't smart? That would be a ridiculous thing to say. Just because someone is an expert in a particular field of science doesn't mean they are authorities in other fields. Hawking is a theoretical physicist/cosmologist. Hawking is NOT a philosopher. Nor a theologian. Nor can spiritual things be found by logic alone (though it should always point in that direction). However, evolution IS science. Evolution helps a person to properly evaluate the first chapters of the bible. From my point of view, evolution is not up for debate. What's up for debate is how Genesis 1 and 2 should be deciphered.

 

[sfs]

I suppose I don't care. If God created us from monkies, I'm ok with it. It would certainly shine more light on some things here on Earth. But we don't have the word that He did it. So I'm reserved, all things considering.

Cool.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Yes it is difficult, but you have to admit that whatever it is that started biological auto reproduction, a single protein string is a whole lot less functionally coherent, at least 2 or 3 steps less for example, than that thing.
This is because whatever got the ball rolling on reproduction consisted of a number of components organized into a certain auto-reproductive mechanism for the purpose of reproduction. Whereas a protein is a component of a cell that only has a function if it is organized into a particular part of a mechanism for a designated purpose.
The direction of the odds is very clear even if the precise number (that is actually quite irrelevant once one gets beyond fantastically improbable odds) is uncertain.
The point is that we take the most basic components, demonstrate that the odds of these occurring by chance is ridiculously low, and then anything beyond that is something that we can comfortably scoff at and make fun of (not that we would, of course, because we do have the highest respect and tolerance for Naturalistic Scientism).

You are making the assumption that the original replicator must have been more complex than any individual component in the mechanism of modern life forms, but these components themselves are the result of over 3.5 billion years of selective pressures. There is no reason the original replicator must have consisted of a number of organised components, it could have been a single molecule (RNA most likely) or a cocktail of a few different ones producing copies of eachother. If life arose from non-life by natural processes then the original chemistry of life would necessarily have to have been fairly simple, and simple replicators have been created in labs already. So no, the direction of the odds is not so clear.

Have a read of this discussion of the probabilities of life arising. It seems we can almost fudge any numbers we like to assert our point of view. Why is this probability any less correct that the OP video? At least this talk origins discussion takes into account many other factors such as the volume of the ocean and the concentration of amino acids etc. But again it's assuming a starting point for life without good evidence in much the same way the OP video does. So we have a range of estimations of the probability of life that range from almost inevitable to impossible. Take note of the conclusion of the article I linked which I think puts it best:

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.​

 

[JacksBratt]

Again, I've never met anyone who believed God couldn't have done it any way he chose. The question is, what does the evidence tell us about how he did do it?

The Bible tells me.

Do you have any evidence for Christ, other than the Bible.
Do you have any evidence for His Crucifixion, His feeding the 5000, His walking on water, His healing the leaper, His casting out demons, His sermon on the mount, His turning water into wine, His raising of Lazarus, His resurrection and appearance to hundreds after His death, How about His ascension?

Do you have any evidence to show this is the honest "gospel" truth...........without the bible?

Because.......it all goes against any science in any time.
There is no proof. There is no scientific explanation. It contradicts the observable, testable and repeatable concept of "empirical science."

Yet, all Christians have no trouble believing it. In fact, betting their eternity on it.

So, "what does the evidence tell us about how he did do it"?

The evidence is not existent. Other than a book.

The absolute and unmoving, rock solid book that says all the above, that we hold dear in our hearts as our salvation.

So, just as the death and resurrection are scientifically unproven, yet true as they are written, Creation is also, scientifically unproven, yet true as it is written.

So, just as the death and resurrection are scientifically unrepeatable, untestable and unobservable, and I believe them. So, is creation untestable, unobservable and unrepeatable. And I will believe it for the same reasons.

Remember, Evolution is unrepeatable, untestable and unobservable. It also wimps out and leaves out the biggest hurdle of all....... the emergence of "LIFE".

So, believe your unscientific and counter biblical view. I'll stick with my unscientific yet BIBLICAL view.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The absolute and unmoving, rock solid book that says all the above, that we hold dear in our hearts as our salvation.

I would say this is a common christian stance but I would be very wary of founding my belief system on anything but God Himself and the real world around us. Reality is the starting point. Not the bible. The bible is a book.

Science and religion WILL converge over time, and Jesus will be properly recognized as Lord over everything.

You've described the bible like an idol and equal to Jesus Himself, "unmoving, rock solid... we hold [it] dear in our hearts as our salvation". ?? No. We don't. I do not worship a book. John 5:39.

 

[friend of]

Because we need an ocean the size of a planet and a few hundred million years of time.

That's kind of like saying astronauts need a planet the size of the moon in order to train for 0 gravity conditions in space.

Laboratory conditions are capable of enhancing the favorable conditions necessary in experimenting with anything, because said conditions can be fine-tuned at earliest perceived need. There's no need to recreate a natural primordial condition when you can feasibly recreate a better one, the point is to have life develop on it's own under laboratory settings. You shouldn't need an entire planet-sized ocean to obtain a single, single-celled organism. While the planet's ocean may have been even larger at that time than it is now, that doesn't mean all of said ocean was required in order for a cell to come about. That's actually really silly if you think about it.

 

[friend of]

Well, no, logically a grand unified theory of particle physics should be at the foundation, right?

Abiogenesis is at least Organic Chemistry and not Inorganic Chemistry. So Abiogensis is still closer related to Evolution (aka the Origin of Species) than the GUT of physics.