How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

[Baggins]

Evidence of design + problems with the theory of evolution.

Well that just bumps your lack of evidence back another stage doesn't it.

Have you got any scientific evidence of design?

Thought not.

And what exactly are your perceived problems with evolution, are any of them scientific, or are they all religious.

 

[Edx]

Well that just bumps your lack of evidence back another stage doesn't it.

Have you got any scientific evidence of design?

Thought not.

And what exactly are your perceived problems with evolution, are any of them scientific, or are they all religious.

No no, the first point is the important point. Anti Evolutionists always ignore it and then go on a PRATT spree on the second point, which of course, even if correct, wouldnt mean the scientific method could accomodate their beliefs.

 

[TheInstant]

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle demonstrated the improbability of getting a single biopolymer such as a protein molecule. He compared it to the odds of 10 to the fiftieth power number of blind persons solving the Rubik cube simultanaeously.

That's great, but without seeing the actual math I can't really judge whether his conclusion is correct or not. I'm also a bit skeptical of his assumptions...wouldn't he have to know exactly how life formed in order to calculate the odds of it happening?

And wasn't Hoyle the one who came up with the whole "tornado in a junkyard" argument? If so, I must say I'm not optimistic that anything he says about chemistry or biology should be taken seriously. But I'm open to the possibility of him being correct. If you have access to his math, please post it. I can't seem to find it online anywhere (aside from books that I don't feel like paying for).

 

[Nooj]

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle demonstrated the improbability of getting a single biopolymer such as a protein molecule. He compared it to the odds of 10 to the fiftieth power number of blind persons solving the Rubik cube simultanaeously.

And who says a protein molecule would come together by chance? Certainly no one here.

 

[Chalnoth]

In your opinion. What do you mean when you say evolution predicts more and is therefore the preferable theory?

First of all, what evolution predicts is not an opinion. It is mandated by the logical conclusions that can be drawn from the theory. The predictions are simply not open to interpretation (this is the primary benefit of science).

Now, that said, evolution predicts complexity because beneficial and neutral mutations that come about randomly will frequently increase complexity. This will typically occur when you have part X that performs function A, but later is adapted to instead perform function B. This occurred in mammals, for instance, where a jawbone found in our reptile ancestors (and modern reptiles) slowly evolved to become a bone in the middle ear of mammals. This type of evolution ends up with many separate parts working together in an interrelated fashion.

Since evolution can only cause this sort of complexity when it is beneficial, the complexity is also specified, as it would not have been selected for if it had no purpose.

Now, bear in mind that the idea of specified complexity is only one singular prediction. The theory of evolution has many more predictions that can be logically derived.

For example, the theory of evolution predicts that some number of organisms will be related to one another through a common ancestry. Thus one prediction of evolution is that we should be able to find animals with which we share a common ancestry. As it turns out, experiments indicate that all life forms share a common ancestry.

Another prediction is that there is no mechanism within the theory of evolution for genetic material to be passed between very different species. Thus evolution predicts that there can be no chimeras (part one animal, part another, like a mammal with bird's wings).

Evolution also predicts that if a structure proved to be beneficial in one line, it will likely prove to be beneficial in another line. Thus the theory of evolution predicts that there should be many examples of analagous evolution: similar traits that arose along completely separate evolutionary paths.

In the end, there really can be no opinion about it. Specified complexity predicts exactly one thing. The theory of evolution predicts that one thing, plus many more. Thus the statement that the theory of evolution predicts more than specified complexity is undeniable.

In your opinion. I doubt that Mr Behe would agree. I was not thinking specifically of irreducible complexity - just that complexity and specificity in living things offer evidence of design, irrespective of whether there is an alternative (questionable) explanation of origins such as evolution.

Once again, it's not an opinion. His requirement of irreducible complexity is that the structure has no function if any one piece is removed. Scientists have provided evidence that the structures he quoted as having irreducible complexity do have a function in organisms missing many pieces. Therefore, these structures that he has mentioned do not fit the definition that he has given for irreducible complexity. Not an opinion in the least.

Now, if you would quote a specific example, we might have a real argument.

We are back to word games again. I believe that the theory of evolution has such a powerful hold on minds within the scientific world, that they apply it to non-living things such as the cosmos.

And once again, you're wrong. I work in cosmology. It's my job. The theory of evolution has absolutely zero application whatsoever in cosmology. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

[Chalnoth]

To use the words of Hoyle, this attitude represents "nonsense of a high order". One of the key stages of evolution that we have talked about, abiogenesis, does not sit well with a range of experimental findings from the laboratory. Evolution will be a fact when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. We seem nowhere such a development yet.

You're wrong:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm
Please read it this time before posting more incorrect statements about the probability of abiogenesis. The problem with Hoyle's arguments is basically that he didn't do a calculation of the probability of abiogenesis within any modern theory of abiogenesis. He made up his own idea on abiogenesis, which nobody believes happened, and then showed how it can't happen. The scientists actually working with abiogenesis have ideas that could happen very easily indeed. And current laboratory experiments seem to indicate that given the right conditions, abiogenesis is darned near inevitable, in a very short span of time (tens to hundreds of millions of years: short in geologic time scales).

 

[combatant]

It seems all fundamentalists have been trained to take what should be a perfectly accurate description of themselves and project it upon every group they do not like. Funny how every hate-filled word you can muster to try and cast the TofE in a spurious light is religious. It’s so very telling.

My point is completely valid. You are a zealot yourself, just for a different cause. You are an evolutionist extremist. Sorry, it's accurate.

I wasn’t only referring to fundamentalist Islamists. There have been plenty of other religious extremists that have killed themselves in the name of their god. The more fundamental the belief, the more extreme the adherents. It’s that simple. I’m sure you wouldn’t hesitate to give your life or take another for your god. Somehow it is perfectly rational to you isn’t it?

The more fundamentally you believe in the Bible, the better. It does not work the same with Islam, because their book advocates death to all pagans, whereas Christ says love your enemies. Christ's doctrine is predicated on love, and nonjudgementalness; that's reserved for God. The comparisons are not the same, fundamental Christianity is vastly different from fundamental Islam; if you can't understand that then you are very ignorant on the subject and should go learn more about it.

Then go ahead and give me one scientific argument against the TofE. Go ahead. Don’t forget to cite sources when you show us your scientific evidence refuting the theory.

I. Lack of transitional fossils. This point is obvious, because a plethora of evolutionists realize this problem, e.g. Gould and his Punk eek theory try to account for the problem. There is a problem there, or else punk eek would not be a necessary explanation.

["The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.…
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."]

The above quote from Gould is not meant to illustrate that Gould believes no transitionals exist, but that there a far fewer ("rarity of transitional forms") than he would want or expect.

II. lack of a demonstrable empirical mechanism to verify macroevolutionism. This is where the theory of evolution really has no verifiable support.

[http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm]

III. the impossibility of convergent evolution,

[For just the same reason, it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be travelled twice. And it would seem similarly improbable, for the same statistical reasons, that two lines of evolution should converge on exactly the same end point from different starting points.

It is all the more striking a testimony to the power of natural selection, therefore, that numerous examples can be found in real nature, in which independent lines of evolution appear to have converged, from very different starting points, on what looks very like the same endpoint. -Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker.]

[Convergent evolution is not possible]

 

[birdan]

As I have indicated elsewhere, the onus is also on you to explain how science can practice good thinking and objectivity, whilst shunning credible alternatives to evolution, seemingly on a technicality. It may be that the definition of science should be broadened but I suspect that this will lead me into another row.

You might want to visit this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3306873-how-do-we-insert-god-into-the-scientific-method.html

and you can post your updated and "broadened" definition of science there. This topic has been around for 3 weeks and no one has yet put forth such a new definition, though it is quite often argued for by fundamental creationists.

 

[Chalnoth]

I. Lack of transitional fossils. This point is obvious, because a plethora of evolutionists realize this problem, e.g. Gould and his Punk eek theory try to account for the problem. There is a problem there, or else punk eek would not be a necessary explanation.

If there were zero transitional fossils in the fossil record, you might have a point. However, this is not true at all, as we have found a large number of them. It's just that the relative number of transitional fossils that are found is much lower than Darwin expected.

Punctuated equilibrium still states that changes happen gradually, and thus that we should find transitional fossils (and we do), but it also says that the rate of change of each species is not constant in time, which reduces the number of transitional fossils which we should expect to find.

Now, because of empirical data, scientists studying evolution understand that they were mistaken, but now understand that it is the only way things could be, through the mathematical concept of self organized criticality.

II. lack of a demonstrable empirical mechanism to verify macroevolutionism. This is where the theory of evolution really has no verifiable support.

Macroevolution has massive experimental support. Too bad you won't pay attention to it, but I'll post it anyway:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

III. the impossibility of convergent evolution,

[For just the same reason, it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be travelled twice. And it would seem similarly improbable, for the same statistical reasons, that two lines of evolution should converge on exactly the same end point from different starting points.

It is all the more striking a testimony to the power of natural selection, therefore, that numerous examples can be found in real nature, in which independent lines of evolution appear to have converged, from very different starting points, on what looks very like the same endpoint. -Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker.]

You're utterly misunderstanding what Dawkins is saying here. Yes, it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should be travelled twice. But that doesn't mean they won't reach similar endpoints often.

 

[USincognito]

I. Lack of transitional fossils. This point is obvious, because a plethora of evolutionists realize this problem, e.g. Gould and his Punk eek theory try to account for the problem. There is a problem there, or else punk eek would not be a necessary explanation.

News of the lack of transitional fossils has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[birdan]

Likewise, I could reply to any theory of abiogenesis by saying "we have far too much too learn about biochemistry to assert that evolutionists have the truth, and problems such as the problem of chiraltry can be overcome".

We have some evidence that habitable universes would be rare, and that translates into evidence for design through the strong anthropic principle.

"An argument from ignorance is not an argument at all."

It is not an argument from ignorance. It is an inductive argument: we know that intelligent beings produce finely tuned designs, so we might infer that finely adjusted characteristics of our universe are attributable to a Fine Tuner. This seems to me to be reasonable evidence that should be heard.

"Just because we don't yet understand all of the details on how the universe came into being doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands and say, 'goddidit.'"

But no one has made that claim.

Joe

We know that supernovae remnants contain a rich assortment of organic molecules and water, and dozens of amino acids have also been detected. Over 70 different amino acids and 3 of the nucleic acids in RNA and DNA have been found in meteorites. The probability of these compounds forming in nature? One. They are natural byproducts of supernovae and star-forming events.

Additionally, regarding homochirality of amino acids:

Abstract:
Whereas amino acids produced by inorganic reactions are equally split between two mirror-image versions, the amino acids found in living things are almost universally "left-handed." The origin of this biological homochirality, as it is called, has been clouded in mystery, but a group of astronomers may have stumbled on the answer. They found that the light passing through large parts of the cosmos is sometimes circularly polarized in one direction. Such radiation can preferentially destroy one version of the amino acid molecules that form in space along with other complex organic compounds. A similar occurrence five billion years ago may have seeded the solar system and the early earth with a lopsided mix of amino acids, which would have favored one handedness over the other when life evolved from these organic molecule

You claim that no one has said we just throw up our hands and say "Goddidit", and yet with your "expanded" definition of science, where would be the impetus to explore and discover the above examples? Amino acids and nucleic acids are too complex to form "by chance", homochirality is unexplainable, therefore a designer did it. End of discussion. End of exploration. End of science.


http://www.americanscientist.org/te...fulltext=true&message=PageAccessDeniedMessage
http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/spectra_summer_2002/SPECTRA_SUMMER2002F07.html

edited for punctuation.

 

[Beastt]

Reply to Beast.

Sorry, but I think the mistakes are yours.

You miss the point. The odds of chemical evolution occurring even over millions of years, are like the odds of someone winning the top prize on the National Lottery for many weeks - i.e. beyond what could be reasonably be attributed to chance.

It would likely facilitate less confusion if you were familiar with the terms. Abiogenesis is a separate theory from evolution. When you refer to evolution, you're talking about a process which can't take place until after the formation of life occurs. Abiogenesis is a completely separate process.

I'm sorry but Oops! yourself. Natural selection could not occur before the first life was able to reproduce itself, and the improbabilities we are talking about refer to the first life evolving from chemical compounds. So natural selection does not come into it yet.

Nor does evolution which is the term you were using. Evolution is separate from and does not address origin of life. If you learn the difference it will be much easier to discuss and keep everyone on the same page.

But as far as that goes, the same problems occur with the calculations. The factors are gathered and calculated as though chemical reactions were completely random processes. Most certainly they are not. If they were, you could never know what would happen when two chemicals were mixed. We already know that nucleotides, in the presence of montmorillonite clay, will spontaneously form into strands of genetic material. This isn't a random process so calculations based on random assembly are completely invalid.

But it is far more probable that a life-prohibiting universe would come into existence.

And you base this assertion upon what? For decades scientists believed that life required a very select mix of environmental factors. But the more they're able to explore the most islolated and inhospitable regions of Earth, the more they find this assumption to be untrue. There is no basis for a statement such as yours. If you want to make such an assertion, then you're going to have to specifically define the necessary components of a universe in order to support life and if you can do that, you'll be the first. Life forms to meet the challenges of the environment, not just within the environments we find most hospitable. That doesn't mean that life can form and thrive everywhere, but it does mean that we can't know what kinds of life might form in environments completely alien to us or that life can't form in environments which would not support any known forms of life.

One that does not collapse in upon itself, but which still has the wrong mix of variables for life to exist. So the life-permitting properties of our own universe still warrant explanation - which is where the evidence for God comes in.

But you don't know what the "wrong mix" of variables would be. Were we to live in a decidedly different universe than this, and be offered a description of this universe, we might well conclude that life could not form or thrive here because it is so different from what we knew. But we would be just as wrong as your statement is likely to be because our knowledge of the requirements of alien life is so minimal. Again, life does not seek out a hospitable environment. It forms to meet the challenges of the environment.

You are too quick to assume the rational high ground. Have you thought this stuff through yourself?

Obviously I have or I wouldn't have been able to demonstrate the short-sightedness of views such as that which you present.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The more fundamentally you believe in the Bible, the better. It does not work the same with Islam, because their book advocates death to all pagans, whereas Christ says love your enemies. Christ's doctrine is predicated on love, and nonjudgementalness; that's reserved for God. The comparisons are not the same, fundamental Christianity is vastly different from fundamental Islam; if you can't understand that then you are very ignorant on the subject and should go learn more about it.

(Kill Nonbelievers) They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

(Kill Followers of Other Religions) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.

(Kill Followers of Other Religions) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.

(Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God) Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.

(Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests) Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

(Kill False Prophets) If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.

(Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

(Kill Fortunetellers) A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.

(Death for Hitting Dad) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.

(Death for Cursing Parents) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.

(Death for Adultery) If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.

(Death for Fornication) A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

Seems to me the only difference between the two is how fundamental their beliefs and how closely they follow their bible. Every time I hear someone speak like you do about your religion vs. other religions I have to wonder if you’ve even read your own bible because there is a whole lot more where that came from.

Lack of transitional fossils.

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Transition from diapsid reptiles to birds
Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals

Transitions among amphibians

Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish

Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation

lack of a demonstrable empirical mechanism to verify macroevolutionism.

”macroevolution” is just another shining example of the ignorant anti-evolutionists making up words. There is no such thing. There is just evolution. Let’s see if you can be the very first to define your own words. What is the point where “microevolution” would become “macroevolution”. Go ahead, be the first creationists to finally define what a “kind” is. Once you do that please explain to us this magical barrier that prevents speciation from crossing your “kind” line.

Observed Speciation
Observed Speciation

Peer-reviewed examples of beneficial mutations and macroevolution/speciation

More Observed Speciation

III. the impossibility of convergent evolution

To follow the exact same evolutionary pathway more than once maybe but because organisms are guided by natural selection it stands to reason that any life that has evolved to survive in the same or similar environment will exhibit the same mechanisms. You, once again, just don’t understand what you are railing against well enough to form a solid argument against it much less hope to refute it. I doubt you’ll even take the time to read any of the links. It seems like the more fundamental the religious adherent the less likely that’ll even care about the evidence. Heck, if you only read the parts of your own bible that you like then what are the chances you’ll read about the TofE. Oh well, maybe a lurker or two will find it enlightening anyway.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

JoeWill,

I’ve always wondered what the rationale is behind such a massive double standard for the creationist’s belief. On one hand you have a well substantiated scientific theory that you refuse to believe with only the slightest uncertainty as the basis. You maintain that because the TofE hasn’t met some ambiguous burden of “proof” that you have placed upon it that it should be considered false. Meanwhile, what you actually choose to believe in instead of the TofE is completely devoid of one small percentage of the evidence or “proof” that you require of the TofE. You merely point in the general area of chance as support of your belief and shift the burden of proof upon others to refute your conjecture. Please explain how this is a reasonable way to go about choosing your beliefs.

 

[Beastt]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AnEmpiricalAgnostic again.