Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[1Tonne]

All you are doing is the same thing I and others have been saying: just SAYING something is observed is not the same as SHOWING it's been observed. There is literally nothing else I have to say on this matter except pointing out the fact that you do not seem to have any legitimate idea how evidence works, and that's clear for anyone to see.

Inference from observed phenomena is not evidence, it's inference. And you don't even have that! All you have and all you will have is claims. Nothing but claims.

If there is evidence for anything you claim, THEN SHOW IT!!!

You keep demanding “evidence,” but strangely refuse to acknowledge what’s already well documented. The fine-tuning of physical constants, the digital code-like properties of DNA, and the abrupt appearance of functional information are not inventions of my imagination, they’re observed realities discussed in mainstream scientific literature. The inference to design is drawn from that evidence, just as naturalism is your own preferred inference. You don’t get to pretend one is science and the other is nonsense just because it doesn’t suit your worldview.
You keep shouting “that’s not evidence” as if repetition settles the matter. But at some point, it starts to look like you’re less interested in truth and more interested in guarding a position.

 

[Larniavc]

That’s what I mean by “accidental.” If there’s no guidance or goal, then by definition, it’s purposeless.

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not random. How hard is that to understand?

The environment sets the parameters in which randomness exists.

 

[1Tonne]

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not random. How hard is that to understand?

The environment sets the parameters in which randomness exists.

I understand the distinction, mutations are random, and natural selection acts as a filter. But filtering randomness doesn’t make the overall process purposeful or guided. Natural selection doesn’t have foresight, intention, or an end goal in mind. That’s exactly the point: if no intelligence is steering it, then it’s still a purposeless process overall. You're just describing a non-random filter being applied to random input. That doesn't magically create purpose or direction, just survivability.

 

[sjastro]

Because people don’t change their worldview in 5 minutes, especially when they’re emotionally or philosophically committed to it. The strength of the argument isn’t measured by how quickly it’s accepted, but by how consistently it holds up under pressure.
And for many, evolution is more than science; it’s a shield. If they acknowledge God, they also have to face the reality of moral accountability. That’s a step many aren’t willing to take, no matter how strong the evidence.

The first paragraph is a classic example of psychological projection at work, the second is indicative of ignorance and bigotry.
Perhaps you are unaware some of the responses given to you in this thread have come from scientists who happen to be Christians.
While I find your comments rather amusing, it wouldn't surprise me if others find them offensive.

 

[Larniavc]

But filtering randomness doesn’t make the overall process purposeful or guided.

Correct. It also does not make the whole process random either.

 

[Larniavc]

That doesn't magically create purpose or direction, just survivability.

Correct. Survivability long enough to have descendants is all it takes.

 

[BCP1928]

Many leading proponents of evolution describe it as unguided and without purpose, mutations are random, and natural selection has no foresight. That’s what I mean by “accidental.” If there’s no guidance or goal, then by definition, it’s purposeless.

You do need help with definitions. "unguided" and "without purpose" do not mean the same thing, Yes, mutations are random (they have to be) variation is randomly distributed and natural selection has no forsight. And no, you don't mean accidental, you mean contingent. But none of that means purposeless.

Thank you. This proves my point.
If explanations that involve God are excluded from the start, then of course only naturalistic theories seem “credible.” But that’s not following the evidence wherever it leads; that’s limiting the options by philosophical bias.

I said credible explanations. The ID you are pushing here is not credible. It has no scientific merit and many Christians (including the Pope, BTW) find that it has no theological merit, either.

 

[BCP1928]

I understand the distinction, mutations are random, and natural selection acts as a filter. But filtering randomness doesn’t make the overall process purposeful or guided. Natural selection doesn’t have foresight, intention, or an end goal in mind. That’s exactly the point: if no intelligence is steering it, then it’s still a purposeless process overall. You're just describing a non-random filter being applied to random input.

Correct. I am glad that you understand that. And in the process, more complex biological structures can arise, step by step, but evolution doesn't "lead" to them or approach them as a goal. But an intelligence doesn't need to be" steering" it in order for it to be purposeful.

That doesn't magically create purpose or direction, just survivability.

Why do you think the biological process of evolution itself should create purpose?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you think the biological process of evolution itself should create purpose?

It is my perception that some (many?) theists are very uncomfortable with the thought that they have to decide on the purpose of life. They would prefer that responsibility lay elsewhere. That seems odd to me: if there were a God,then giving products of its creation the opportunity to determine their own purpose would surely be a magnificent gift.

 

[sfs]

I’m not denying that changes happen or that new sequences can form

That's precisely what you were denying 25 hours earlier:

Shannon information measures data quantity, but functional biological information is about specific sequences that produce meaningful outcomes, like building proteins. In DNA, the sequence matters because it directs function. That’s not just random data, it’s specified, functional information, which we only ever see coming from intelligence.

You've repeatedly dropped or greatly modified claims when it's been pointed out that they're clearly incorrect without ever acknowledging that you've changed your position. Are you aware that you're doing this?

 

[River Jordan]

I’m not denying that changes happen or that new sequences can form

Then your original point has been answered. Evolution can and does produce new functional genetic sequences.

, but the real issue is where truly novel, functional, and information-rich systems come from, especially those with interdependent parts. That’s a much higher bar than simple variation.

There are tons of papers in science publications about that subject. Have you read any of them?

No, I don’t think genes “pop into existence all at once,” and that’s not what I said. But if you're going to claim that random mutations and natural selection can build complex, multi-layered biological systems from scratch, then you’re the one with the extraordinary claim, and the burden to demonstrate it, not just assert it with condescension.

What do you mean "from scratch"?

Telling people to "learn the basics" doesn't explain away the real scientific challenges involved in origin-of-information debates.

I'm trying to help you because you've been making some very basic errors.

No, I don’t think scientists just “make things up,” but let’s not pretend assumptions don’t play a role when direct observation is impossible.

What specific assumptions are you referring to?

Inferring large-scale transformations over millions of years based on fragmentary data is a form of assumption

No it's not. Scientists make inferences from the data.

, especially when the mechanisms proposed haven’t been shown to generate that level of complexity

How do you know that's the case? Do you stay up to speed on the science by regularly reading the relevant journals?

 

[River Jordan]

I'd like to know if evolution can be destroyed in less than 5 minutes why has there been an ongoing debate in this thread which is now around the 3 day mark and still counting?

Because the argument it presented isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Rarity alone doesn’t identify the cause, but when that rarity is coupled with function and precision (like life-permitting constants), it’s more like finding a working engine, not just tires. That does raise the question of intentional setup over chance.

The "live-generating" aspect *IS* the rarity we are talking about. Showing the Universe is *rare* only demonstrates that it is rare, not that it was designed, or that there is a multiverse, or any of the other scenarios. Other evidence is required. (If the Universe is *not* rare, it doesn't settle the question either.)

 

[BCP1928]

That's precisely what you were denying 25 hours earlier:

You've repeatedly dropped or greatly modified claims when it's been pointed out that they're clearly incorrect without ever acknowledging that you've changed your position. Are you aware that you're doing this?

It reflects the Discovery Institutes experience with ID. They had to keep backing down and backing down until there was nothing left.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you mean "from scratch"?

The cell went down to the chemical stores and got jar labeled "mixed nucleotides".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You keep demanding “evidence,” but strangely refuse to acknowledge what’s already well documented. The fine-tuning of physical constants, the digital code-like properties of DNA, and the abrupt appearance of functional information are not inventions of my imagination, they’re observed realities discussed in mainstream scientific literature. The inference to design is drawn from that evidence, just as naturalism is your own preferred inference. You don’t get to pretend one is science and the other is nonsense just because it doesn’t suit your worldview.
You keep shouting “that’s not evidence” as if repetition settles the matter. But at some point, it starts to look like you’re less interested in truth and more interested in guarding a position.

But if it was well documented, I wouldn't be saying there's no evidence and asking for you to provide evidence. You say that I'm "less interested in truth and more interested in guarding a position., I could easily say that you are showing nothing but intellectual laziness in refusing to provide evidence that, according to you, exists but you refuse to do something as simple as present the evidence when asked. This is definitely a two-way street with regards to any insults we can bandy against each other.

Simply put: if there is evidence as you claim, then simply show it!

 

[1Tonne]

The first paragraph is a classic example of psychological projection at work, the second is indicative of ignorance and bigotry.
Perhaps you are unaware some of the responses given to you in this thread have come from scientists who happen to be Christians.
While I find your comments rather amusing, it wouldn't surprise me if others find them offensive.

I’m aware that some Christians believe in evolution, but when they attribute the design and wonder of creation to blind, natural processes, they still redirect glory away from the Creator. That’s not a minor issue. I make no apology if that offends. What does offend me is when people give credit to chance and animals for what God clearly deserves praise for.

You do need help with definitions. "unguided" and "without purpose" do not mean the same thing, Yes, mutations are random (they have to be) variation is randomly distributed and natural selection has no forsight. And no, you don't mean accidental, you mean contingent. But none of that means purposeless.

If there's no guiding mind, no intended outcome, and no foresight, then calling it "purposeless" is entirely fair. Word games don’t change the core idea. If everything is the result of undirected processes, then design and purpose are illusions. That’s the point.

said credible explanations. The ID you are pushing here is not credible. It has no scientific merit and many Christians (including the Pope, BTW) find that it has no theological merit, either.

LOL. The pope has issues

Correct. I am glad that you understand that. And in the process, more complex biological structures can arise, step by step, but evolution doesn't "lead" to them or approach them as a goal. But an intelligence doesn't need to be" steering" it in order for it to be purposeful.

That’s where we fundamentally disagree. Purpose, by definition, implies intention, a goal in mind. If evolution isn’t directed, doesn’t aim for outcomes, and has no foresight, then any “purpose” attributed to it is just a projection. Without a mind to intend or steer, calling it purposeful stretches the meaning of the word beyond recognition.

You've repeatedly dropped or greatly modified claims when it's been pointed out that they're clearly incorrect without ever acknowledging that you've changed your position. Are you aware that you're doing this?

No, I haven’t changed my position; I’ve clarified it. There’s a big difference between random variation and the origin of specified, functional systems with interdependent parts. That’s been my point all along. Shannon information and functional information are not the same and bringing that up isn’t backpedalling, it’s adding necessary detail to a complex discussion. If you're reading that as a contradiction, you may be conflating different levels of argument.

What specific assumptions are you referring to?

For starters: the assumption that unguided processes can account for the origin of life, that mutations plus natural selection can build all biological complexity, and that present rates and mechanisms can explain the distant past. These aren’t directly observed, they’re inferred within a framework that assumes naturalism from the outset.

How do you know that's the case? Do you stay up to speed on the science by regularly reading the relevant journals?

I don’t need a subscription to every journal to recognise when core claims go beyond what’s directly observable. Many of the key points, like abiogenesis, or mutation plus selection producing vast complexity, remain assumptions built on interpretation, not direct demonstration. I stay informed enough to know where the line is between data and made-up story.

But if it was well documented, I wouldn't be saying there's no evidence and asking for you to provide evidence. You say that I'm "less interested in truth and more interested in guarding a position., I could easily say that you are showing nothing but intellectual laziness in refusing to provide evidence that, according to you, exists but you refuse to do something as simple as present the evidence when asked. This is definitely a two-way street with regards to any insults we can bandy against each other.

Simply put: if there is evidence as you claim, then simply show it!

I have already pointed to the fine-tuning of physical constants (e.g., gravity, strong nuclear force, cosmological constant), the specified, code-like nature of DNA, and the sudden appearance of fully formed systems in the fossil record, all well-discussed in scientific literature. You keep saying “that’s not evidence” without engaging with what’s actually being referenced. Dismissing every example as “not evidence” simply because it doesn’t support your worldview isn’t a scientific rebuttal, it’s evasion.
If you're genuinely interested, I can list specific peer-reviewed sources. But if your only goal is to keep repeating "where’s the evidence" regardless of what’s shown, then I have to wonder whether you’re even open to considering anything that challenges your assumptions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have already pointed to the fine-tuning of physical constants (e.g., gravity, strong nuclear force, cosmological constant), the specified, code-like nature of DNA, and the sudden appearance of fully formed systems in the fossil record, all well-discussed in scientific literature. You keep saying “that’s not evidence” without engaging with what’s actually being referenced. Dismissing every example as “not evidence” simply because it doesn’t support your worldview isn’t a scientific rebuttal, it’s evasion.
If you're genuinely interested, I can list specific peer-reviewed sources. But if your only goal is to keep repeating "where’s the evidence" regardless of what’s shown, then I have to wonder whether you’re even open to considering anything that challenges your assumptions.

A peer-reviewed source! That is 100% something that is evidence! PRESENT IT and I'll stop saying that all you've been doing is saying there's evidence without showing there's evidence! Because that is all you've been doing!

 

[1Tonne]

A peer-reviewed source! That is 100% something that is evidence! PRESENT IT and I'll stop saying that all you've been doing is saying there's evidence without showing there's evidence! Because that is all you've been doing!

Great, glad we agree that peer-reviewed sources count as evidence. Here are a few to get us started:

1. Fine-tuning of the universe:
-Luke A. Barnes (2012). The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4), 529–564.
This paper reviews the precise values of physical constants necessary for life and the improbability of them arising by chance.

2. Information in DNA:
-George F. R. Ellis (2016). How Can Physics Underlie the Mind? Top-Down Causation in the Human Context. Springer.
While broader than just DNA, Ellis (a highly respected physicist) discusses how biological information functions and interacts in ways not reducible to mere physics.
-Leroy Hood & David Galas (2003). The digital code of DNA. Nature, 421, 444–448.
This article refers to DNA explicitly as a digital information system—clearly supporting the analogy to code and specified information.

3. Abrupt appearance in the fossil record:
-Douglas H. Erwin et al. (2011). The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals. Science, 334(6059), 1091–1097.
This paper outlines how many major animal body plans appear suddenly in the Cambrian with no clear gradual precursors. (As little as 3-4 million years)

These are not fringe claims. They are serious discussions in scientific literature. Now that we’re past the “just claims” objection, the ball’s in your court: engage with the material, or admit that maybe your dismissal was premature.

 

[River Jordan]

I’m aware that some Christians believe in evolution, but when they attribute the design and wonder of creation to blind, natural processes, they still redirect glory away from the Creator.

That's not true and is nothing more than your personal belief.

For starters: the assumption that unguided processes can account for the origin of life

Chemistry? I don't believe God has to guide every chemical reaction in the universe. Do you?

that mutations plus natural selection can build all biological complexity

I don't believe that either, but I'd bet you don't understand why.

and that present rates and mechanisms can explain the distant past. These aren’t directly observed, they’re inferred within a framework that assumes naturalism from the outset.

Those are your personal views and you're certainly welcome to them, but I certainly don't "assume naturalism" in my work.

I don’t need a subscription to every journal to recognise when core claims go beyond what’s directly observable.

So you don't stay up on the current science and you have a bizarre view that only things that are directly observable are scientifically valid. I'll have to tell marine biologists that a lot of their work is invalid, eh? After all, they don't directly observe a lot of the things they study (such as bluefin tuna migrations).

Many of the key points, like abiogenesis, or mutation plus selection producing vast complexity, remain assumptions built on interpretation, not direct demonstration. I stay informed enough to know where the line is between data and made-up story.

It doesn't look like it to me. You've made some very basic errors, and have some odd views about how science is conducted and how scientists reach conclusions.

Also you must have missed this: What do you mean by "from scratch"?

Also, I have a difficult time believing God guides evolution because that would mean God has guided bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics, pests to evolve resistance to treatments, and things like that. Is that what you believe?