Creationists: What have you studied re: evolution? What resources have you specifically used?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I don't see how platonic teleo
has any bearing on evolution. Explain?

This sounds like the Aristotelian idea of final causes, i.e. the purpose of something or the end towards which it naturally develops (as contrasted with efficient causes, i.e. the means or process by which a result occurs). In the context of evolution, this is sometimes used to suggest a goal, or a directing agency.

 

[Astrid]

This sounds like the Aristotelian idea of final causes, i.e. the purpose of something or the end towards which it naturally develops (as contrasted with efficient causes, i.e. the means or process by which a result occurs). In the context of evolution, this is sometimes used to suggest a goal, or a directing agency.

Sounds like it, my question may have been like "Surely not "

 

[Speedwell]

This sounds like the Aristotelian idea of final causes, i.e. the purpose of something or the end towards which it naturally develops (as contrasted with efficient causes, i.e. the means or process by which a result occurs). In the context of evolution, this is sometimes used to suggest a goal, or a directing agency.

Which is a misuse of the concept, implying that purpose is transmitted through the efficient causes in some way rather than being parallel to them. More to the point, a randomly acting cause, such as genetic mutation, is not a barrier to Telos.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Which is a misuse of the concept, implying that purpose is transmitted through the efficient causes in some way rather than being parallel to them. More to the point, a randomly acting cause, such as genetic mutation, is not a barrier to Telos.

Right. In my case though, I was suggesting that there may be an aspect of natural law which skews the probability of mutations toward functional outcomes in a way that the directedness of purpose is observable.

 

[PhantomGaze]

I don't know what CD is...?

Common Descent.

We observe that many like to cite atheists who found God,
but upon examination virtually all were raised in a religious home, fell away as disaffected youth and were sucked back in.

If that's true (not disputing but also haven't seen the source.) It may be because theists have more children, and more children are raised theist. Though I think people like Francis Collins are sufficient to make reasonable counterpoints.

 

[Speedwell]

Right. In my case though, I was suggesting that there may be an aspect of natural law which skews the probability of mutations toward functional outcomes in a way that the directedness of purpose is observable.

Yes. But so far it hasn't been observed. All we have seen so far is what would be expected from random variation and natural selection. I can't think of how a slight non-randomness of mutations would even be observable.

 

[Astrid]

Common Descent.



If that's true (not disputing but also haven't seen the source.) It may be because theists have more children, and more children are raised theist. Though I think people like Francis Collins are sufficient to make reasonable counterpoints.

Rare exceptions don't mean much.
Thing is, there's hardly anything more sure to get a eye-roll from atheists than someone saying, "I ( he she they ) was atheistt then found god.
Or the preacher, 'lo, verily I was the worst of sinners but I found God."
It could hardly be less convincing about the reality
of God if designed to be.
As science it is less than negative minus zero.

Concocting ways that on zero evidence one may
inject God into natural processes is anti science.
it's function is self deception.

If I believed in God I'd be inclined to learn what I could of his nature from what we see thar he did, like say build mountains with tectonics or vulcanized.

Deciding he liked hippogrifs and then going out to look for them is silly at best.

Same with creationist idess.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes. But so far it hasn't been observed. All we have seen so far is what would be expected from random variation and natural selection. I can't think of how a slight non-randomness of mutations would even be observable.

ISTR hearing that some parts of the genome tended to have more mutations than others. Whether that was referring to status after the repair mechanisms have done their work (apparently they vary in efficiency and area of action), or whether some parts are (somehow) more susceptible to mutations, I don't know.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Yes. But so far it hasn't been observed. All we have seen so far is what would be expected from random variation and natural selection. I can't think of how a slight non-randomness of mutations would even be observable.

So there's two different potential directions I had in mind with this, but I would probably start by pointing out that it isn't simply a creationist trope that functional protein sequences are very difficult to come by, and yet we see them evolve anyway.

Rare exceptions don't mean much.
Thing is, there's hardly anything more sure to get a eye-roll from atheists than someone saying, "I ( he she they ) was atheistt then found god.
Or the preacher, 'lo, verily I was the worst of sinners but I found God."
It could hardly be less convincing about the reality
of God if designed to be.
As science it is less than negative minus zero.

Concocting ways that on zero evidence one may
inject God into natural processes is anti science.
it's function is self deception.

If I believed in God I'd be inclined to learn what I could of his nature from what we see thar he did, like say build mountains with tectonics or vulcanized.

Deciding he liked hippogrifs and then going out to look for them is silly at best.

Same with creationist idess.

Right. A person's anecdote of their own spiritual or intellectual development isn't science clearly.

Also, I'm not a biblical literalist.

ISTR hearing that some parts of the genome tended to have more mutations than others. Whether that was referring to status after the repair mechanisms have done their work (apparently they vary in efficiency and area of action), or whether some parts are (somehow) more susceptible to mutations, I don't know.

Indeed. Although I would say that there are a lot of non-random mechanisms worthy of discussion, your memory serves you well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Indeed. Although I would say that there are a lot of non-random mechanisms worthy of discussion, your memory serves you well.

Thanks for finding that paper - I thought I had a record of it, but couldn't find it.

E.T.A. Actually, the one I remember was a later, slightly more general paper.