Is Unguided Evolution Scientific?

[rush1169]

In talking with a friend, we concluded that:

'Evolution' is founded in science while 'unguided evolution' is outside of science and is an opinion.

An opinion that, arguably, sides with a less probable scenario of 'it just happened' vs an 'Instantiater / Director'. Even if argued that unguided evolution could occur, that fact doesn't remove the possibility of God. Even if proven (if that's possible) that unguided evolution did occur, the possibility of God remains. It would seem, in the case of proven unguided evolution, that if God is the instantiater then science is showing us a level of God's intelligence at a higher level of human comprehension than ever before.

Neither guided nor unguided evolution is a scientific statement. Both are an opinion with no scientific foundation. Plain-vanilla evolution as science makes no statement for or against God.

 

[Loudmouth]

In talking with a friend, we concluded that:

'Evolution' is founded in science while 'unguided evolution' is outside of science and is an opinion.

From a metaphysical standpoint, you can't be 100%, absolutely sure. However, what you can say is that all of the observations are consistent with unguided evolution. There are two classic experiments where the observations are consistent with unguided evolution:

Luria?Delbrück experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution 101: The Lederberg Experiment

Both of these experiments demonstrated that bacterial resistance to antibiotics and phage are due to random mutations that occur in the absence of these challenges.

When we move away from bacteria to complex animals, what we see is DNA sequences that accumulate mutations with no selection against deleterious mutations, and then other sections of the genome where there are fewer changes than there should be. The areas with fewer changes are areas where deleterious mutations have been selected against. We have ample evidence that neutral and deleterious mutations do occur, and that they they have to be removed by natural selection.

Also, we don't see sequences jumping from major branch of the animal tree of life to another major branch. If evolution were being guided, then we would expect sequences to converge at a much, much higher rate. They doesn't happen.

An opinion that, arguably, sides with a less probable scenario of 'it just happened' vs an 'Instantiater / Director'. Even if argued that unguided evolution could occur, that fact doesn't remove the possibility of God. Even if proven (if that's possible) that unguided evolution did occur, the possibility of God remains. It would seem, in the case of proven unguided evolution, that if God is the instantiater then science is showing us a level of God's intelligence at a higher level of human comprehension than ever before.

Neither guided nor unguided evolution is a scientific statement. Both are an opinion with no scientific foundation. Plain-vanilla evolution as science makes no statement for or against God.

What we do know is that we can explain how biodiversity is created in nature without needing to reference a single deity.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[rush1169]

Plain-vanilla evolution as science makes no statement for or against God.

What we do know is that we can explain how biodiversity is created in nature without needing to reference a single deity.

Exactly. Science is deity neutral. I could re-write my quote above as:
Plan-vanilla evolution as science is silent towards God. Once the speaker tacks on 'guided/unguided' to the evolution topic, he has stepped outside of science and is now offering purely unscientific opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. Science is deity neutral. I could re-write my quote above as:
Plan-vanilla evolution as science is silent towards God. Once the speaker tacks on 'guided/unguided' to the evolution topic, he has stepped outside of science and is now offering purely unscientific opinion.

Do you agree with the TOE?

 

[Strathos]

Depends what you mean by "guided"

 

[Zosimus]

I think you would have to define "evolution" more clearly before I could render an opinion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In talking with a friend, we concluded that:

'Evolution' is founded in science while 'unguided evolution' is outside of science and is an opinion.

An opinion that, arguably, sides with a less probable scenario of 'it just happened' vs an 'Instantiater / Director'. Even if argued that unguided evolution could occur, that fact doesn't remove the possibility of God. Even if proven (if that's possible) that unguided evolution did occur, the possibility of God remains. It would seem, in the case of proven unguided evolution, that if God is the instantiater then science is showing us a level of God's intelligence at a higher level of human comprehension than ever before.

Neither guided nor unguided evolution is a scientific statement. Both are an opinion with no scientific foundation. Plain-vanilla evolution as science makes no statement for or against God.

The fact that our days are bathed in light from the sun causes life on earth to evolve eyes. The process is random mutation and natural selection, but the results are, in a sense, guided by the fact of the light being available in our environment.

Our environment has been stable for a few billion years, enough time for life to develop to achieve our level of intelligence. Its not the the step by step mutations were guided, but the stability of the environment together with its richness of possibilties guided us in a general way to become intelligent life, even as ubiquitous light guided the evolution of eyes.

The universe was created pregnant with us.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you would have to define "evolution" more clearly before I could render an opinion.

The important bits for this thread would be the disconnect between the mutagenesis, selection, and fitness. The processes that produce mutations are not guided by what the organism needs. The process of selection works through fitness and can not see what the underlying DNA sequence is. Also, the process of mutation and selection in one population is blind to the same process in other species. We have multiple mechanisms that can't see what the other one is doing.

A good example of this is the evolution of dark fur in pocket mice. There were two different populations of mice that evolved dark fur, and they did so through different mutations for the same phenotype.

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

If evolution were guided, they would have evolved the same fur color from the same mutations. They didn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. Science is deity neutral. I could re-write my quote above as:
Plan-vanilla evolution as science is silent towards God. Once the speaker tacks on 'guided/unguided' to the evolution topic, he has stepped outside of science and is now offering purely unscientific opinion.

I don't see why God could not be detected through scientific means if God is actually doing something in nature. The fact that we can explain how nature works without referencing the supernatural suggests to me that there is no supernatural, or at least it is irrelevant to the universe we live in.

 

[sfs]

I don't see why God could not be detected through scientific means if God is actually doing something in nature. The fact that we can explain how nature works without referencing the supernatural suggests to me that there is no supernatural, or at least it is irrelevant to the universe we live in.

God could be detectable if he is doing some things in nature and not other things. If he's doing everything (or at least in control in some way of everything), then there's really nothing to test for. How do characters in a novel test for the existence of a novelist?

 

[bhsmte]

God could be detectable if he is doing some things in nature and not other things. If he's doing everything (or at least in control in some way of everything), then there's really nothing to test for. How do characters in a novel test for the existence of a novelist?

I agree.

If a supreme being (God) flipped the switch on everything and got the ball rolling and let nature take it's course, no way of telling what the source is.

Of course, the next question would be; what is this supreme being that got things rolling and what are his characteristics and how do they jive with what he created?

 

[Loudmouth]

God could be detectable if he is doing some things in nature and not other things. If he's doing everything (or at least in control in some way of everything), then there's really nothing to test for. How do characters in a novel test for the existence of a novelist?

Instantaenously turning water into wine, walking on water, leading a group of people with a pillar of fire, manna falling from the heavens . . . there would seem to be many claims of God doing things sometimes, and not others.

 

[Zosimus]

The important bits for this thread would be the disconnect between the mutagenesis, selection, and fitness. The processes that produce mutations are not guided by what the organism needs. The process of selection works through fitness and can not see what the underlying DNA sequence is. Also, the process of mutation and selection in one population is blind to the same process in other species. We have multiple mechanisms that can't see what the other one is doing.

A good example of this is the evolution of dark fur in pocket mice. There were two different populations of mice that evolved dark fur, and they did so through different mutations for the same phenotype.

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

If evolution were guided, they would have evolved the same fur color from the same mutations. They didn't.

None of this defines evolution. If the author of the thread postulates that the frequency of alleles would stay rigidly the same and no copying errors could ever occur without the interference of a supernatural being, then I would have to say that I disagree with the idea.

If, however, it were argued that life is designed to be adaptive, then the person might be able to make a convincing argument.

Nor is your pocket mice argument persuasive. Imagine that the problem is how to reach fruit hanging from trees. We assume that no person is tall enough to reach the fruit. Some people construct ladders, others climb the tree, and still others use objects such as sticks to extend their reach.

Is it your argument that if an intelligence had designed the human brain, then all the people would arrive at the same solution – i.e., that everyone would climb or use sticks? How does that follow?

 

[sfs]

Instantaenously turning water into wine, walking on water, leading a group of people with a pillar of fire, manna falling from the heavens . . . there would seem to be many claims of God doing things sometimes, and not others.

Doing things differently sometimes is the claim, I think. It's of course possible to scientifically investigate particular claims of events that don't fit normal patterns, to see whether they do or not. But that doesn't solve the general problem of detecting a divinity that interacts with the world.

 

[sfs]

I agree.

If a supreme being (God) flipped the switch on everything and got the ball rolling and let nature take it's course, no way of telling what the source is.

Of course, the next question would be; what is this supreme being that got things rolling and what are his characteristics and how do they jive with what he created?

Verifiable information about ultimate causes is in notorious short supply.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Plain-vanilla evolution as science makes no statement for or against God.

This is true. Science makes some assumptions, such as that mutations are random. What evidence we have tends to support that assumption, but doesn't preclude gods or guidance. If you rolled 100 dice and they all came up 6, you might suspect there was some divine power at work. If you rolled 100 dice, and they came up in a random distribution, but a god secretly made the 39th die turn up 3 instead of 5, there's no likely way we would ever know.

As long as the gods don't 'tip their hand' by making the evidence obvious, they could be behind any occurrence that we think of as random, including evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

I agree.

If a supreme being (God) flipped the switch on everything and got the ball rolling and let nature take it's course, no way of telling what the source is.

Of course, the next question would be; what is this supreme being that got things rolling and what are his characteristics and how do they jive with what he created?

That's the question for everyone.

For some, nothing did it.

 

[justlookinla]

Plain-vanilla evolution as science makes no statement for or against God.

Sure it does. The view that only random/chance mutations was the impetus which created the new life forms, which eventually became humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago, promotes the conclusion that humanity is a Godless creation.

 

[crjmurray]

I agree.

If a supreme being (God) flipped the switch on everything and got the ball rolling and let nature take it's course, no way of telling what the source is.

Of course, the next question would be; what is this supreme being that got things rolling and what are his characteristics and how do they jive with what he created?

That's essentially my view.

But when it comes to that next question I think, "who cares?"