How Evolution Gained Prominence

[funyun]

Science says evolution is impossible, but scientists ignore this and make their proposals of naturalistic autonomy anyway.

By all means, demonstrate to us how evolution is impossible.

 

[Dal M.]

Since evolution had already been a rejected idea, why did the addition of natural selection morph it into a foundational theory? After all, natural selection is a rather simple principle.

Now that we have a hundred and fifty years' worth of perspective, it's easy to say that. The idea of evolution had been kicking around the scientific community for a few decades, it's true-- not sure why you think it'd been disproven before Darwin's time, but whatever-- and yet it lacked a workable mechanism. Natural selection provided that mechanism.

Of course, if Darwin had read up on the works of Mendel, a contemporary of his, he could've figured out with the other important mechanism of evolution pretty easily, and developed the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis more than half a century early. But what he did discover is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Alas, another post-and-run, it would seem.

Some folks just can't stick around for their humility lesson.

 

[theotherguy]

1 number 3 words (1 possibly misspelt) and some letters
2nd law of themodamics
Order cannot arise from Chaos
The struture in a system becomes less as time goes on.
Invailates Evolution and the Big Bang
Both of these claim that exsiting conditions became more strutured:

 

[theotherguy]

Math would also ditate this is impossible
Impossible is a Scientic chance of more than 10 to power of 50 against. The chance of the simplist organism evoluing by chance is seavel powers higher than impossible (that sounds stupid but the only way to avoid critism for making it sound like I was saying it was possible) and this isn't even capable of independant survival. (requries host cell)

 

[Silent Bob]

Ok first of all the 2nd LoT refers to a system as a whole, isolated from external power sources. What this means is simple: Firstly before total entropic death it is very possible that order will arise in small areas of a system (order in the form of planets, stars supernovae etc). Secondly the earth is not isolated. If it was and we saw life formed on it then it could be a possible breach of the 2nd LoT.

The answer to the second post is a bit trickier to grasp. One cannot speak of the meaning of a possibility for an event to occur when the event has already occurred. Wow I won the lottery the first time I played it, the chances of this happening are 10^whatever to 1 so there is a God.

Besides Theists assume that the current form of the universe is the only one possible to sustain life or survive long enough. But one can argue that there are other possible outcomes that are capable of sustaining life. Why is this one the only one we experience? Because if it wasn't exactly as it is then we wouldn't be around to see it. That doesn't mean that other states are not possible or probable. I rolled a six cause I rolled a six if I roll again I might get a three or even possibly another six. If the die falls off the table I ll pick it up and re-roll. And if I am playing alone then nothing stops me from rolling again and again till I hit 6 1000 times in a row. Impossible? If I had nothing better to do for the rest of time maybe I would try it.

 

[funyun]

1 number 3 words (1 possibly misspelt) and some letters
2nd law of themodamics
Order cannot arise from Chaos
The struture in a system becomes less as time goes on.
Invailates Evolution and the Big Bang
Both of these claim that exsiting conditions became more strutured:

1) Go back and reread what the Second law says. You will notice it says nothing about "chaos" or "order", or any other philosophical hooey. What it does talk about, is heat, and the way it acts in a closed system.
2) This tired old argument is wrong, and one of the biggest reason is because you are treating the Earth as a closed thermodynamic system, which it is not.
3) Another reason this argument is wrong is because if it were true, you, I, and Darwin would never have been able to go from a zygote to a fetus. Congratulations, you have just made an indirect argument against the Strong Anthropic Principle.
4) How in the world could the Second Law invalidate the Big Bang? You're just being ridiculous now.

Math would also ditate this is impossible
Impossible is a Scientic chance of more than 10 to power of 50 against. The chance of the simplist organism evoluing by chance is seavel powers higher than impossible (that sounds stupid but the only way to avoid critism for making it sound like I was saying it was possible) and this isn't even capable of independant survival. (requries host cell)

1) What in the heck is "chance"? Are you talking about mutations? If so, I'm sorry you are wrong, mutations happen all the time.
2) Good thing "chance" is not the only factor in allelle frequency changes. We also have environmental pressures (resulting in natural selection), sexual selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.
3) Provide a scientific source backing up your bogus math.
4) "and this isn't even capable of independant survival. (requries host cell) " What does this mean?

 

[Bushido216]

h2whoa:
Well, yes and no. Your whole argument seems based on these two statements.

You are correct that the Bible is not a science textbook. And it is a guide to getting to know God and be closer to Him. But that is not its limit, nor should it be.

The Bible is also history, poetry, prophecy, and biography. The creation account is written as a history. It has the same genre styles of all the other histories of the Old Testament. Therefore, to say it is not correct in its statements is to either call God a liar or to say the whole Bible is not His word.

Either way, one is going to be terribly wrong.

But more to the point...the people of Biblical times were not stupid. God could have very easily explained evolutionary origins without the scientific jargons of DNA, natural selection, etc. After all, public schools do it with our kindergarten children, so surely Moses would have understood. It is somewhat arrogant to say Moses, and the Hebrews as a whole, were too stupid to understand small changes over time.

You do realize you have stepped into a debate with those far more learned on the subject than either you or me. Prepare to be assailed by the invincible wit and intelligence of those about you.

 

[kingreaper]

Math would also ditate this is impossible
Impossible is a Scientic chance of more than 10 to power of 50 against. The chance of the simplist organism evoluing by chance is seavel powers higher than impossible (that sounds stupid but the only way to avoid critism for making it sound like I was saying it was possible) and this isn't even capable of independant survival. (requries host cell)

Who claimed that it formed randomly?

There are laws in chemistry, and then there is natural selection of prebiotic elf-replicating chemicals

 

[kingreaper]

1 number 3 words (1 possibly misspelt) and some letters
2nd law of themodamics

Who has that siggy at the moment?

(I need to make up a mocking pick for 2nd law of thermodynamics, any ideas?)

Order cannot arise from Chaos

Evidence please?

The struture in a system becomes less as time goes on.

So ice is less structured than water? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Invailates Evolution and the Big Bang

How? and How?

Both of these claim that exsiting conditions became more strutured:

Oh yes, like a gsas cloud coalescing into a star

wait

that is perfectly natural

sorry, but thermodynamics is extremely limitreed by the fact it is only an absolute when dealing in heat

 

[Bushido216]

h2whoa:
Well, yes and no. Your whole argument seems based on these two statements.

You are correct that the Bible is not a science textbook. And it is a guide to getting to know God and be closer to Him. But that is not its limit, nor should it be.

The Bible is also history, poetry, prophecy, and biography. The creation account is written as a history. It has the same genre styles of all the other histories of the Old Testament. Therefore, to say it is not correct in its statements is to either call God a liar or to say the whole Bible is not His word.

Either way, one is going to be terribly wrong.

But more to the point...the people of Biblical times were not stupid. God could have very easily explained evolutionary origins without the scientific jargons of DNA, natural selection, etc. After all, public schools do it with our kindergarten children, so surely Moses would have understood. It is somewhat arrogant to say Moses, and the Hebrews as a whole, were too stupid to understand small changes over time.

If you divorce yourself from the notion that because it is written as a history, Genesis must be historical, you can come up with some curious and interesting alternatives.

Among them is that the Genesis account of Creation is an interesting and literarily complex story meant to illustrate several key points, among them the sanctity and importance of marriage, Original Sin, God's power, etc., etc., etc..

The Genesis account can be said to stand for plenty of things, and when you accept that it doesn't have to stand up to the historical test and that it isn't meant as a literal work you can understand that it can be true in any number of philisophical / moral / metaphorical ways despite the prominence and correctness of the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, and the various other theories and notions.

So, can Genesis be literal and be correct? No. It can be correct in any number of ways, however, all of which preserve the rightness and correctness of the Bible as God's Holy, Divine, and Inspired Word.

 

[Bushido216]

But more to the point...the people of Biblical times were not stupid. God could have very easily explained evolutionary origins without the scientific jargons of DNA, natural selection, etc. After all, public schools do it with our kindergarten children, so surely Moses would have understood. It is somewhat arrogant to say Moses, and the Hebrews as a whole, were too stupid to understand small changes over time.

Only if that were the point of Genesis 1 & 2.

 

[Bushido216]

Now we can see all of the damage done. One hundred-fifty years later intellectuals of our culture mock Christianity, and many of those rejecting Christ do so because they have been taught that evolution is the omnipotent creator. One unbiblical doctrine fed the fire of evolution, and to this day salvation is ignored as irrelevant, and sin is redefined as choice. It is now more difficult to be a witness for Christ if you do not know what evolution is, and what the evidence against it is. When Christians are not well versed in creation science, they often cannot get past the origins debate when witnessing for Jesus, and many have even tried to put evolution and God together in a compromise known as theistic evolution.

That is only happening because people like you are saying that either Genesis is a literal history or the Bible cannot be trusted! It is the YECists that are losing souls because they cannot divorce themselves from their own interpretation of Genesis.

If YECists can learn to accept that Genesis does not need to be a literal, factual account of our history the arguement over "science vs. God" would dissappear! The best arguements against theism and God that atheists have would all but vanish. YECists have done far more damage to Christianity than Darwin ever did.

 

[Bushido216]

1 number 3 words (1 possibly misspelt) and some letters
2nd law of themodamics
Order cannot arise from Chaos
The struture in a system becomes less as time goes on.
Invailates Evolution and the Big Bang
Both of these claim that exsiting conditions became more strutured:

This is patently false. If the 2LoTD worked as you say it does, you would never have been born.

What the 2LoTD does say is that energy tends to go from high energy regions to low energy regions save for an outside force.

Now, this could invalidate evolutionary theory (and your birth for that matter) if the earth were a closed system. It is not. We are constantly recieving energy from the sun (that big yellow orb). We are provided the energy needed for doing things like constructing proteins, birthing, and evolving.

k?

 

[Bushido216]

Math would also ditate this is impossible
Impossible is a Scientic chance of more than 10 to power of 50 against. The chance of the simplist organism evoluing by chance is seavel powers higher than impossible (that sounds stupid but the only way to avoid critism for making it sound like I was saying it was possible) and this isn't even capable of independant survival. (requries host cell)

You are assuming a telos. Evolution is not far-sighted, it is involved in the here and now. It will select those genotypical changes that are most beneficial for the organism now, thusly it cannot have an end or a goal.

Therefore your arguement is non-existant.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

1 number 3 words (1 possibly misspelt) and some letters
2nd law of themodamics
Order cannot arise from Chaos
The struture in a system becomes less as time goes on.
Invailates Evolution and the Big Bang
Both of these claim that exsiting conditions became more strutured:

Not only is that not what the 2nd law of thermodynamic states, it is the exact oposite of what the end results of the 2nd law of thermodynamics will be.

If the universe is a closed system, then in the end it will be highly ordered, all energy and heat will be in balance. The 2nd law of thermodynamics produces order, it does not lead to chaos.

 

[JAL]

I would say that Genesis tells you, in easy to understand, metaphor manner, that God is the creator. Doesn't make Him a liar either way. It's a metaphor.

I'm a Christistian who is pretty uninformed about the creation-evolution debate. Hoping you can enlighten me a little. Like the other post suggested, Adam seems to be a good reason for creationism, for two reasons based on Rom 5. (1) Sin entered the world through one man Adam. (2) Christ is the second Adam.

In Rom 5, Paul is speaking literally (not metaphorically) of how Christ, as ONE MAN, atoned for sin. He makes a parallel with Adam in the very same setences. ADam is the ONE MAN responsible for sin. I have a hard time with a hermeneutic that makes one part of a verse literal, and the second part of the verse metaphorical. So it seems to me that Adam is literally the ONE MAN.

So how does Adam fit into an evolutionary theology? For instance, was there a literal Adam in your opinion?

 

[JAL]

You are assuming a telos. Evolution is not far-sighted, it is involved in the here and now. It will select those genotypical changes that are most beneficial for the organism now, thusly it cannot have an end or a goal.

Therefore your arguement is non-existant.

I'm confused. I am not attacking you, but I am asking a question. (And frankly I don't know your beliefs). Doesn't even atheistic evolution entail a telos? Why should there be such a thing as natural selection? Why should brute matter care whether we survive or not? And if it doesn't care, how can it be inclined toward natural selection? And even if it were so inclined, evolution assumes that the laws of physics dictate the motions of particles, doesn't it? So any biological changes would not incline toward survival of the fittest but would rather fulfill the laws of physics just like any particle does.

Please enlighten me on how evolutionists would answer these questions. Then if I reasons to disagree, I'll try to debate the issue with you. Thanks.

 

[Gracchus]

Math would also ditate this is impossible
Impossible is a Scientic chance of more than 10 to power of 50 against. The chance of the simplist organism evoluing by chance is seavel powers higher than impossible (that sounds stupid but the only way to avoid critism for making it sound like I was saying it was possible) and this isn't even capable of independant survival. (requries host cell)

The probability that a randomly shuffled deck of cards will acheive the order it has is 52!=52*51*50*...*3*2*1~=8.06582E+67~=8 times 10^67. So you are saying that the chance that a randomly shuffled deck of cards will fall into the order it does is "scientifically impossible".

Moreover, evolution does not proceed by chance but by the laws of chemistry and physics, and by selection.

Thinking before you post will minimize the ridicule that will accrue to your karma. Even if folks won't post for fear of flaming they will be thinking, "What a maroon!" Of course you are not a "maroon" but some people less understanding than I will think it.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt." -- Unknown

 

[gluadys]

I'm confused. I am not attacking you, but I am asking a question. (And frankly I don't know your beliefs). Doesn't even atheistic evolution entail a telos?

No, it doesn't. Evolution has no future-oriented goal (telos). It has only the goal of survival in the present and even that is not a conscious "goal".

Why should there be such a thing as natural selection? Why should brute matter care whether we survive or not? And if it doesn't care, how can it be inclined toward natural selection?

It doesn't care. What species do is reproduce. All natural selection means is that under certain circumstances organisms with one set of characteristics will be better at producing offspring which themselves mature and reproduce than organisms with a different set of characteristics. Has nothing to do with being inclined to anything other than reproduction.

And even if it were so inclined, evolution assumes that the laws of physics dictate the motions of particles, doesn't it?

Yes.

So any biological changes would not incline toward survival of the fittest but would rather fulfill the laws of physics just like any particle does.

Why do you think that survival of the fittest is not compatible with the laws of physics?