What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Do you like short or long explanations (more or less than 25 words)? I'll start with the short one. Current biology would hold that had not a long sequence of species preceded us, homo sapiens would never have existed. In it's simplest, least controversial form (at least within the biology world), my model would suggest not all of those preceding species were necessary. A few of them could have been leap-frogged - maybe even came after homosapiens rather than before.

Too add to the previous post, man is a result and not a goal. I have seen some creationists try to "disprove" evolution by using odds arguments. They almost always fail since they treat man as a goal. Of course the odds are incredibly great against man evolving. The odds of something evolving approach one. Lotteries give an excellent analogy to this. The odds of any one person winning a lottery can be hundreds of millions to one. The odds of someone winning the Powerball or other such lottery approaches one over time. No one that won the lottery was a specific goal of the lottery. Man was not a specific goal of evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pitabread....
I was watching this before.
Not every scientist, as I've said, agrees with you and some of the others here.

I may not know too much about science, but others do.
And I know with which side I agree.

...

much more stuff like this that makes a lot of sense.

This video (the second one) features a philosopher, a mathematician, and a computer scientist. I tried watching it, but it was a bit much. None of these people have any real experience in the natural sciences which is where evolution, etc., is founded. I fail to see the relevance of these three talking about something they dislike.

 

[solid_core]

Too add to the previous post, man is a result and not a goal. I have seen some creationists try to "disprove" evolution by using odds arguments. They almost always fail since they treat man as a goal. Of course the odds are incredibly great against man evolving. The odds of something evolving approach one. Lotteries give an excellent analogy to this. The odds of any one person winning a lottery can be hundreds of millions to one. The odds of someone winning the Powerball or other such lottery approaches one over time. No one that won the lottery was a specific goal of the lottery. Man was not a specific goal of evolution.

This is only your atheistic worldview.

According to me, man and namely Jesus was the center point of all earthly evolution/creation.

Science has nothing to say about it, so its about our philosophy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Too add to the previous post, man is a result and not a goal. I have seen some creationists try to "disprove" evolution by using odds arguments. They almost always fail since they treat man as a goal. Of course the odds are incredibly great against man evolving. The odds of something evolving approach one. Lotteries give an excellent analogy to this. The odds of any one person winning a lottery can be hundreds of millions to one. The odds of someone winning the Powerball or other such lottery approaches one over time. No one that won the lottery was a specific goal of the lottery. Man was not a specific goal of evolution.

One of those videos above (the one I just left in a previous message) had a bit in it where S. Meyer goes on (for a long time) about the mathematical unlikelihood of a protein or DNA sequence and that "even a HS student" could calculate it. I think this is the problem with kind of argument is that these academics with Ph.D.s are thinking about some of these things at a HS level.

 

[Speedwell]

This is only your atheistic worldview.

According to me, man and namely Jesus was the center point of all earthly evolution/creation.

Science has nothing to say about it, so its about our philosophy.

But there is no theological necessity that the earthly reservoir of our immortal souls be an erect bipedal mammal.

 

[solid_core]

But there is no theological necessity that the earthly reservoir of our immortal souls be an erect bipedal mammal.

Not sure what you mean by "theological" in this sense, but every detail is exactly as it had to be. Because God chooses only the best variant. Simply from the definition of deity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is only your atheistic worldview.

According to me, man and namely Jesus was the center point of all earthly evolution/creation.

Science has nothing to say about it, so its about our philosophy.

No many people feel that, not just SZ, and not just atheists. Plus, SZ's comment was about the futility of using the "odds argument" against evolution. The thread is literally about creationism having a positive explanatory framework:

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.

Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is only your atheistic worldview.

According to me, man and namely Jesus was the center point of all earthly evolution/creation.

Science has nothing to say about it, so its about our philosophy.

I disagree. The point is that I can support what I believe with reliable evidence. The sciences strongly support evolution. There is no support for creationism. That is not an "atheistic worldview". That is a scientific one. And that one is accepted by most Christians throughout the world. Trying to put a religious spin on science only hurts the religious beliefs of the person placing that spin.

 

[solid_core]

No many people feel that,

OK, I do not know how to talk about people's feelings.

 

[solid_core]

I disagree. The point is that I can support what I believe with reliable evidence. The sciences strongly support evolution. There is no support for creationism. That is not an "atheistic worldview". That is a scientific one. And that one is accepted by most Christians throughout the world. Trying to put a religious spin on science only hurts the religious beliefs of the person placing that spin.

But you stepped out of science and tried to make a metaphysical claim - "man is not a goal".

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of those videos above (the one I just left in a previous message) had a bit in it where S. Meyer goes on (for a long time) about the mathematical unlikelihood of a protein or DNA sequence and that "even a HS student" could calculate it. I think this is the problem with kind of argument is that these academics with Ph.D.s are thinking about some of these things at a HS level.

Yes, oversimplified views of what it takes for a protein to form. It is not just a matter of counting the atoms and the different ways that they could form. And also the frequent assumption that only one protein could do the job. It is rather amazing that they do not realize that those that understand protein formation far better than they do (or than I do for that matter) do not agree with their analysis. I won't try to use simple arguments to refute complex ideas. I am all but certain that I did so in the past, we probably all have. But I learned from my mistakes. These people are more than intelligent enough to learn from their errors. They simply will not allow themselves to learn since it would mean an end to their beliefs. It is also why their arguments are easily refuted by anyone that does understand the science that they are abusing.

 

[Resha Caner]

One of the main sources of variation is mutations that arise through reproduction. You have on the order of 100 mutations in the genome that you inherited from your parents. Most do nothing. In fact it is possible for all of them to be totally benign, neither advantageous or disadvantageous. Those that have an effect tend to be very small ones. If they are positive changes they increase the odds of being passed on. Negative ones reduce that possibility. These are all rather basic ideas that I will gladly support if needed.

No need. I knew this.

And I am sure that you know that mutations that have a strong effect are almost always negative mutations.

Yes.

It would actually take energy to prevent these variations. That is why I said that variation appears naturally.

Yes, it would take energy to interfere with the process causing mutation. Yet, simply because you label mutations as "natural" (whatever you mean by that) does not mean the process is a perpetual motion machine. Mutations are not uncaused. They are caused, and that cause requires energy. These causes are one of the boundary conditions to which I referred. Rates of mutation can be affected, however I don't recall how big a player it was. It doesn't jump out in my memory that changing rates of mutation was a significant factor.

As to a "system changing". You appear to be talking about an accumulation of changes that causes a noticeable difference. Those changes that are finally noticed are merely the accumulated small changes that were positive which are all but indiscernible when the mutations that caused them first appeared. Also most traits arise by the slow change of existing "systems". They do not appear full blown.

Yes, I knew that. Regardless of how small the change, the system is different, and the energy involved (no matter how small) in it's daily functioning is different. I would consider it an error to interfere and arbitrarily decide which changes are significant to energy consumption and which are not. Better to let the model work that out on its own. Then, over time, as the system changes accumulate and the energy consumption changes by significant levels, the effect become significant.

There is of course energy involved in growing, selection and reproduction. What I objected to is your idea that variation, the one process that occurs naturally and would take energy to prevent would ever stop.

I understand your point now. It is something I would have to review to confirm what actually happens in the model (which, in all honesty, I'm not going to take the time to do). You are right that such shouldn't happen, but I can't recall well enough to say what actually was happening. Still your objection doesn't pertain to the intent of my comment, so I'll try to rephrase.

Building on your comment about the hundreds of inherited mutations, most of which have no functional impact on the organism, I will refer back to my opening statement about axiomizing (is that a word?) biology and selecting what I intended to focus on. I was only focused on those changes that caused a functional change in the organism - however long it took for them to appear ... and I do recall that. I assume you are aware of the large number of mutating organisms involved in evolutionary change. As such, the simulation of some boundary conditions would run and run and run and never produce much of anything. It could get quite boring.

 

[46AND2]

Rats, lost a post when the site was being a bit glitchy earlier.

Okay, your post tells me that you do not understand variation. One of the main sources of variation is mutations that arise through reproduction. You have on the order of 100 mutations in the genome that you inherited from your parents. Most do nothing. In fact it is possible for all of them to be totally benign, neither advantageous or disadvantageous. Those that have an effect tend to be very small ones. If they are positive changes they increase the odds of being passed on. Negative ones reduce that possibility. These are all rather basic ideas that I will gladly support if needed. And I am sure that you know that mutations that have a strong effect are almost always negative mutations. It would actually take energy to prevent these variations. That is why I said that variation appears naturally.

As to a "system changing". You appear to be talking about an accumulation of changes that causes a noticeable difference. Those changes that are finally noticed are merely the accumulated small changes that were positive which are all but indiscernible when the mutations that caused them first appeared. Also most traits arise by the slow change of existing "systems". They do not appear full blown. And to understand this it helps to understand what a Vestigial Organ is. They are not the strawman version that creationists give of an organ that has lost all function. That does not tend to happen. A vestigial organ is an organ that has lost much of its original function. It often picks up a secondary function in the meantime. For example the stapes bone is technically a vestigial organ since it does not do a job that it had in the past. And the evolution of the mammalian ear is well known and can be traced through the fossil record.

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia

The idea of sudden changes does not tend to occur very often at all. I see that @pitabread brought up horizontal gene transfer. That is an example of variation that is sudden, but those genes had to arise by a slow process themselves. And they tend to occur mostly in single celled life. For multicellular life it is merely an accumulation of changes that occurred randomly and were put through the sieve of natural selection.

There is of course energy involved in growing, selection and reproduction. What I objected to is your idea that variation, the one process that occurs naturally and would take energy to prevent would ever stop.

Any questions? Just one at a time please since this is getting to be a more complex idea.

SD, I for one, would like to see this topic discussed, but your condescension is offputting. Resha is a smart dude. I recognize that it's hard to separate the ridiculous arguments that are typically seen from creationists with ones that offer a bit more healthy criticism. But you are overstating Resha's ignorance of evolution. He understands it much better than you give him credit for.

 

[Speedwell]

Not sure what you mean by "theological" in this sense, but every detail is exactly as it had to be. Because God chooses only the best variant. Simply from the definition of deity.

What I meant was that all God required for His purposes was a creature with self-aware intelligence. The physical form of that creature was irrelevant. Consequently, calculating the odds against evolution producing a creature which is identical to our present physical form is useless as an argument against evolution.

 

[solid_core]

What I meant was that all God required for His purposes was a creature with self-aware intelligence. The physical form of that creature was irrelevant

Why do you think that God cares only about content and not about form?

There are no empty places in God's knowledge. And as He knows the content perfectly, He also knows the form perfectly and therefore chooses the best possible combination of both.

 

[Resha Caner]

The evolutionary history of Earth isn't mandated by necessity; it's simply a description of what already happened. The reason biologists point to a series of preceding species over ~4 billion years is because that is what happened.

As a process, evolution does not have a preordained goal to arrive at specific species.

Too add to the previous post, man is a result and not a goal. I have seen some creationists try to "disprove" evolution by using odds arguments. They almost always fail since they treat man as a goal. Of course the odds are incredibly great against man evolving. The odds of something evolving approach one. Lotteries give an excellent analogy to this. The odds of any one person winning a lottery can be hundreds of millions to one. The odds of someone winning the Powerball or other such lottery approaches one over time. No one that won the lottery was a specific goal of the lottery. Man was not a specific goal of evolution.

Yes, I know. I never said evolution has a goal. Nor did I say the outcome was necessary. Yet evolution is claiming a specific descent. So what I did say (or meant to say) is that the simulation indicated the chain of descent proposed by evolution could instead be a population containing some unrelated species - species that didn't descend one from the other as the evolutionary chain proposes.

I asked if you wanted the short explanation, but it seems a longer one will be necessary. So, let me ask some of the questions I used in my axiomizing process (it's an official word now). Some of them were questions I posted here. Some of them were things I discussed with biologists. Some of them I pondered and studied on my own.

With the first appearance of a homosapiens organism, whenever and however that occurred, was a new species invented that never existed and was never possible before? Or, had the homosapiens DNA sequence always been a viable organism, it just needed the right time and place?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you stepped out of science and tried to make a metaphysical claim - "man is not a goal".

Wrong, that is a simple declaration in regards to how evolution works point out a common error of creationists. If anything it is the opposite.

 

[solid_core]

Wrong, that is a simple declaration in regards to how evolution works point out a common error of creationists. If anything it is the opposite.

Well, man is here. Therefore man was the goal. Because God knows end from the beginning. Every predetermined event is certain to happen. True randomness does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it would take energy to interfere with the process causing mutation. Yet, simply because you label mutations as "natural" (whatever you mean by that) does not mean the process is a perpetual motion machine. Mutations are not uncaused. They are caused, and that cause requires energy. These causes are one of the boundary conditions to which I referred. Rates of mutation can be affected, however I don't recall how big a player it was. It doesn't jump out in my memory that changing rates of mutation was a significant factor.

Okay, starting here.

Since mutations occur in all life and without artificial causes they are be definition "natural". One can increase the mutation rate and one could claim that those are not natural, but that is not the topic at hand. Mutations are going to exist no matter what. It is not a matter of putting in extra energy at the moment of conception or other odd ideas. And there is no needed additional energy. Just because extra mutations can be caused does not mean that all mutations require additional energy. A simple copying error will cause a mutation and no additional energy is needed for that. If the energy exists to reproduce the energy exists for mutations. There is no reason that variation would end.

Yes, I knew that. Regardless of how small the change, the system is different, and the energy involved (no matter how small) in it's daily functioning is different. I would consider it an error to interfere and arbitrarily decide which changes are significant to energy consumption and which are not. Better to let the model work that out on its own. Then, over time, as the system changes accumulate and the energy consumption changes by significant levels, the effect become significant.

You need to show that this mysterious energy is needed. Once again, many mutations are copying errors. Why do you think it takes additional energy to make mistakes?

I understand your point now. It is something I would have to review to confirm what actually happens in the model (which, in all honesty, I'm not going to take the time to do). You are right that such shouldn't happen, but I can't recall well enough to say what actually was happening. Still your objection doesn't pertain to the intent of my comment, so I'll try to rephrase.

Building on your comment about the hundreds of inherited mutations, most of which have no functional impact on the organism, I will refer back to my opening statement about axiomizing (is that a word?) biology and selecting what I intended to focus on. I was only focused on those changes that caused a functional change in the organism - however long it took for them to appear ... and I do recall that. I assume you are aware of the large number of mutating organisms involved in evolutionary change. As such, the simulation of some boundary conditions would run and run and run and never produce much of anything. It could get quite boring.

Most mutations do nothing. And it may be all but impossible to mirror the same sort of changes one sees in nature in a computer program. Think of it, every birth could be seen as an experiment with a hundred different mutations, and then we are ignoring the various other evolutionary "forces" besides variation and natural selection. Each birth represents on the order of one hundred mutations and a typical population is a million individuals or more. It would be a massive program to run and then you would have to figure out how to apply natural selection as a filter. It would take quite a bit of knowledge of both biology and coding to be able to write such a program.

I think that is why most of the studies out there are on how evolution happened, not necessarily each and every microstep occurred. That is probably an insoluble problem. That is probably why the studies are often on the what evolved when.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, man is here. Therefore man was the goal. Because God knows end from the beginning. Every predetermined event is certain to happen. True randomness does not exist.

No, that is an unwarranted assumption. If you want to make a claim that something was predetermined the burden of proof is upon you. I have doubts that you could support that belief.

And quantum mechanics implies that true randomness does exist. One cannot definitively claim that the universe is a clockwork one. On a macro level the universe appears clockwork but as we peel the onion we ultimately find that is an unjustified belief.