It's time to stop being afraid of ridicule

[The Barbarian]

We all get what natural selection does. If you're saying a superior design will tend to out perform, out last and hence be reproduced in higher numbers than inferior ones.... that's not a novel insight,

It was before Darwin. Long before Darwin, people realized that some kind of evolution must have happened. Darwin's great discovery was how it works.

Interestingly, engineers have realized that Darwinian evolution is remarkably efficient for complex problems that resist solutions by design. They have learned to copy the Darwinian processes we see in nature. They produce genetic algorithms that copy those processes, and they are very effective.

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques​

Random optimization methods along with surrogate models were firstly used to generate a population of engine calibrations, which then served as an initial population to a specifically conceived Genetic Algorithm (GA) based optimizer, which was finally applied on a real data set for a particular engine operating point. The results were compared with a calibration optimized using a traditional local approach method. A simultaneous reduction of about 20% in NOX and 1% in Brake Specific Fuel Consumption was achieved, with no significant increase in other emissions. The methodology described in the paper has the potential to reduce the calibration time and effort by half, while obtaining better calibrations.

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques

Although the advancements in automotive diesel engines in the last two decades have resulted in the possibility of achieving better performance with l…

www.sciencedirect.com

God had it right, after all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It was before Darwin. Long before Darwin, people realized that some kind of evolution must have happened. Darwin's great discovery was how it works.

Interestingly, engineers have realized that Darwinian evolution is remarkably efficient for complex problems that resist solutions by design. They have learned to copy the Darwinian processes we see in nature. They produce genetic algorithms that copy those processes, and they are very effective.

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques​

Random optimization methods along with surrogate models were firstly used to generate a population of engine calibrations, which then served as an initial population to a specifically conceived Genetic Algorithm (GA) based optimizer, which was finally applied on a real data set for a particular engine operating point. The results were compared with a calibration optimized using a traditional local approach method. A simultaneous reduction of about 20% in NOX and 1% in Brake Specific Fuel Consumption was achieved, with no significant increase in other emissions. The methodology described in the paper has the potential to reduce the calibration time and effort by half, while obtaining better calibrations.

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques

Although the advancements in automotive diesel engines in the last two decades have resulted in the possibility of achieving better performance with l…

www.sciencedirect.com

God had it right, after all.

Well yes, long before Darwin, farmers knew about natural variation, and how you could select for certain traits. They also knew about the limitations- you can only enhance or diminish already existing functions within certain parameters that the animal is already designed to operate within- push those too far and you don't get a new animal, you just kill it. Same with the engine.

They had been putting Darwin's theory to the test for thousands of years and already knew why it didn't work.

Darwin wasn't a farmer, so you can understand his lack of knowledge regarding this

 

[The Barbarian]

Well yes, long before Darwin, farmers knew about natural variation, and how you could select for certain traits. They also knew about the limitations- you can only enhance or diminish already existing functions within certain parameters that the animal is already designed to operate within- push those too far and you don't get a new animal, you just kill it.

No, that's false. What animal breeders in Darwin's time called "sports" were visible mutations. And they used artificial selection to improve the breeds thereby. Of course, if a mutation "pushes too far", the animal dies or is substandard, and is not used for breeding. Only those with useful ones are so used.

Same with the engine.

That's the beauty of the process. You see, each generation, there will be a number of mutations. Most don't do much. Some are harmful and a very few are improvements. Natural selection sorts it out. In the case of engineers using Darwinian evolution, each iteration of the process involves many random "mutations" in the engine, after which only the most efficient are retained for the next round of mutations. This is what farmers and animal breeders do, and what happens in nature. It turns out to be far more efficient than design. It's a very successful imitation of biological evolution.

What Are Genetic Algorithms? Working, Applications, and Examples​

Genetic algorithms are iterative optimization techniques that simulate natural selection to find optimal solutions.

Genetic Algorithms - Meaning, Working, and Applications - Spiceworks

As I said, God knows best. He has been using that process for billions of years and knew from the beginning it would work best. I spent some time studying these processes in a master's program in systems. And yes, if you think about it, Darwinian processes are just common sense.

Darwin wasn't a farmer, so you can understand his lack of knowledge regarding this

Ironically, Darwin was an animal breeder himself, and was very familiar with animal breeding, corresponding with many such people. His great insight was that natural selection was the same process as artificial selection of animal and plant breeders. If you had read his book, you should have noticed that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's the beauty of the process. You see, each generation, there will be a number of mutations. Most don't do much. Some are harmful and a very few are improvements. Natural selection sorts it out. In the case of engineers using Darwinian evolution, each iteration of the process involves many random "mutations" in the engine, after which only the most efficient are retained for the next round of mutations. This is what farmers and animal breeders do, and what happens in nature. It turns out to be far more efficient than design. It's a very successful imitation of biological evolution.

"Some are harmful and a very few are improvements"​

I agree, random mutations can endow benefits. But there is a very important distinction to make between genetic novelty and 'improvement'

Destroying genetic information can be an improvement in certain niches of course, if a brown bear has a mutation destroying it's ability to produce pigment in it's fur, it may have an advantage in the arctic snow.

But you see the problem here; this destruction does nothing to explain how the destroyed ability itself originated.

To borrow from your mechanical analogy; if my exhaust rusts and falls off my car, it will go faster and get better gas mileage, in the niche environment of a race, this random mutation, entropy, destruction of function has endowed an improvement, right?
But this is no way can be extrapolated to explain the creation of the exhaust system, far less the entire car.

i.e. the direction of change we observe from genetic mutation is entirely contrary to what the fossil record shows us - a general progression towards higher function, not lesser.

Ironically, Darwin was an animal breeder himself, and was very familiar with animal breeding, corresponding with many such people. His great insight was that natural selection was the same process as artificial selection of animal and plant breeders. If you had read his book, you should have noticed that.

I read it cover to cover plus many other works of his, he mentions nothing about how biological novelty originates other than 'chance variation'

Today, chance variation is what we can empirically observe to destroy genetic function, not create it.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Some are harmful and a very few are improvements"​

I agree, random mutations can endow benefits.

And that's all it takes. Natural selection then sorts them out, preserving the useful ones and removing the harmful ones.
And remember, "favorable mutation" only counts in terms of environment,

But there is a very important distinction to make between genetic novelty and 'improvement'

Yes. All new mutations increase information in a population. But it's the useful ones that will improve fitness. And that's what natural selection preserves.

Destroying genetic information can be an improvement in certain niches of course, if a brown bear has a mutation destroying it's ability to produce pigment in it's fur, it may have an advantage in the arctic snow.

Things were better than that. The skin of a polar bear is black. The white fur channels solar radiation down to the skin where it's absorbed. Polar bears evolved from brown bears maybe 100,000 years ago.

But you see the problem here; this destruction does nothing to explain how the destroyed ability itself originated.

That's what mutation does. As in the case of the color change, the useful mutations were retained and others were lost by natural selection. Here's a few that evolved by mutation and natural selection in polar bears:

10 Unique Polar Bear Adaptations - Wildlife Informer

Here we learn about the largest land carnivore on earth, the polar bear. Here are 10 polar bear adaptions that allow this bear to survive.

wildlifeinformer.com

To borrow from your mechanical analogy; if my exhaust rusts and falls off my car, it will go faster and get better gas mileage, in the niche environment of a race, this random mutation, entropy, destruction of function has endowed an improvement, right?

That would work if cars had mutations. You see, that's why genetic algorithms work. Each "generation", there are mutations, and only the best ones go on to the next iteration. But yes, if the loss of a muffler permits the car to go faster, then it would be more "fit" for racing. Not surprisingly, we don't see mufflers on dragsters.

i.e. the direction of change we observe from genetic mutation is entirely contrary to what the fossil record shows us - a general progression towards higher function, not lesser.

Precisely because natural selection only lets you see the winners. You're making some progress here. BTW, that process has been repeatedly observed in actual populations of living things. Would you like to learn about some of that?

Darwin wasn't a farmer, so you can understand his lack of knowledge regarding this

Ironically, Darwin was an animal breeder himself, and was very familiar with animal breeding, corresponding with many such people. His great insight was that natural selection was the same process as artificial selection of animal and plant breeders. If you had read his book, you should have noticed that.

I read it cover to cover plus many other works of his, he mentions nothing about how biological novelty originates other than 'chance variation'

But as you seem to have missed, Darwin wrote extensively on the process of selection in breeding. And he realized that in nature, the same process worked to improve fitness in populations.

In his introduction:
"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."

In the first chapter:
CHAPTER I
VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION
Causes of Variability

No scientist of his time knew about genetics. But as he writes in chapter 1, variation is a fact and it continues even in the highly-developed domesticated plants and animals.

 

[Job 33:6]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is through natural, unguided processes. No guidance. No plan. No creator.

Intelligent design is exactly as the name says. An intelligent, purposeful mind is the explanation. Even if you believe God could have coded a program to cause evolutionary change over billions of years, that is still not evolution. That is intelligent design. But, listening to the way people talk, I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design. You don't want to be that kind of Christian. Those kind of Christians tend to get ridiculed. And, it can get quite personal.

That's not hyperbole. I had an atheist tell me that he genuinely believed it was not only okay, but good, to ridicule Christians because reasoned arguments just don't work on them. The ridicule is like being cruel to be kind. They'll realize later, once they snap out of it, that it was for their own good. There's a good deal of people out there doing that kind of thing without being aware of it.

Calling it theistic evolution seems to cut down on at least some of that ridicule. At least you're getting the evolution part right. Most atheists seem to be happy with that trade off. But, I think it's time to stop being afraid to call it what it really is,; intelligent design. Give credit back to the creator where it belongs.

Genesis describes ancient near east cosmology, not 21st century science.

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Genesis 1:6

God made the dome, and separated the waters which were below the dome from the waters which were above the dome; and it was so. God called the dome heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:7‭-‬8

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the dome of the sky.”
Genesis 1:20

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him [or stood above it] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
Genesis 28:12‭-‬13

“You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth.
Exodus 20:4

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Job 22:14

He has described a circle [earths shape] on the face of the water between light and darkness. “The pillars of heaven tremble, and they are astounded at his rebuke.
Job 26:10‭-‬11

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18

Have you entered the storehouse of the snow, or seen the armory of the hail,
Job 38:22
God stores his weapons and mana in storehouses to help the isrealites in battle, and to give gifts to His people.

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:13

Yet in all the world their line goes out, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has pitched a tent for the sun,
Psalms 19:4

The tree that you saw, which grew great and strong, so that its top reached to heaven and was visible to the end of the whole earth,
Daniel 4:20

The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord sits enthroned as king forever.
Psalms 29:10

Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven,
Psalm 78:23

you set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind,
Psalms 104:3

He causes the clouds to arise from the end of the earth, makes lightning bolts accompany the rain, and brings the wind out of his storehouses.
Psalms 135:7

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, because he commanded and they were created. And he put them in place *forever and ever*, by a decree he gave that will not pass away.
Psalms 148:4‭-‬6

Praise Yah. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament.
Psalms 150:1

and all the host of heaven shall rot. And the skies shall roll up like a scroll, and all their host shall wither like the withering of a leaf from a vine, or like the withering from a fig tree.
Isaiah 34:4

It is he who sits above the *circle* of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Isaiah 40:22

Over the heads of the angels there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire stone; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26

And I looked, and look! On the dome that was above the head of the cherubim something like a stone of sapphire, and like the appearance of the shape of a throne it appeared above them.
Ezekiel 10:1

He made strong the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Proverbs 8:28-‬29

The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was why removed from its place.
Revelation 6:14

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”
Revelation 4:1

“Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:4‭-‬6

The earth and all its inhabitants are shaking; I steady its columns. Selah
Psalms 75:3

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, And he hath set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:8

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And that's all it takes. Natural selection then sorts them out, preserving the useful ones and removing the harmful ones.
And remember, "favorable mutation" only counts in terms of environment,

well no, because beneficial or not, losing a function is not the same process as gaining one.

I need little mechanical skill to remove my exhaust, back seats and spare tire... (micro-evolution) to provide a benefit to my car in a niche environment.
We cannot extrapolate that to prove I can build a Lamborghini from a model T (macro-evolution), by merely ripping parts off the model T- no matter how long you give me.

Similarly in genetics; one mutation can destroy the construction and function of an entire protein. The odds are quite high and so it is exactly what we actually observe in minor 'adaptations' or 'micro-evolution'

constructing a whole new functional protein by the same mechanism, is exponentially more problematic

Yes. All new mutations increase information in a population. But it's the useful ones that will improve fitness. And that's what natural selection preserves.

point mutations don't increase information, & deletions don't increase information. But additions will also destroy the function of the information because you have shifted the frame of reference in the genetic code.

But as you seem to have missed, Darwin wrote extensively on the process of selection in breeding.

Sure, as an academic pursuit to further his theory. Millions of others were already doing it their whole lives for hundreds of years to the practical end of feeding their families, not to publish speculative books on it!

Natural Selection has been the most important [] means of modification.

There is his fundamental misunderstanding again, and it is repeated throughout the book. you can't modify something by selecting it.

I believe you said "mutations are required to introduce new information' or words to that effect, we agree with each other on this, not Darwin

 

[The Barbarian]

well no, because beneficial or not, losing a function is not the same process as gaining one.

Pretty much it is. Mutations. Most don't really affect function. Some harm function. Some make it better. Natural selection sorts it out.

We cannot extrapolate that to prove I can build a Lamborghini from a model T (macro-evolution), by merely ripping parts off the model T- no matter how long you give me.

But as engineers have learned, if you make some small changes in an engine and only allow the most efficient ones to be used in the next iteration, mutation and natural selection will produce a more efficient engine than design can produce. That's why they use genetic algorithms.

point mutations don't increase information,

All new mutations increase information in a population. Perhaps you aren't familiar with how information works. Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?

constructing a whole new functional protein by the same mechanism, is exponentially more problematic

Which is why that's not very common. Most new proteins are just modifications of existing ones. As Dr. Hall showed with bacterial, new enzymes tend to be rather inefficient at first, but evolve over time to become more efficient. The "nylon bug" mutation that permitted bacterial to digest nylon is an interesting exception. Should we talk about that?

But as you seem to have missed, Darwin wrote extensively on the process of selection in breeding.

Sure, as an academic pursuit to further his theory.

No. He was interested in that long before he realized that species were not immutable. Read the first chapter of his book. He was acutely interested in among others, dogs and pigeons and was very well acquainted with the practices of breeders.

"Natural Selection has been the most important means of modification."

There is his fundamental misunderstanding again, and it is repeated throughout the book. you can't modify something by selecting it.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding, again. Mutations, acted upon by natural selection is the means of Darwinian evolution. Darwin was aware that there would be random change as well, but as he pointed out the origin of new taxa is mostly by Darwinian means.

I believe you said "mutations are required to introduce new information' or words to that effect

Yes, that is what Darwin showed. He called them "sports" or "new variation" because he didn't know why they appeared. But he knew they did, and knew that they were essential to the origin of species.

Later on, Mendel's work became known, and Darwin was found to be correct.

 

[GodLovesCats]

theistic evolution ... is a belief where one has "its cake and eat it to" and it dismisses the Genesis account ... God being the creator of everything (fully formed) from the beginning.

Being a theistic evolution or intelligent design believer is the opposite of dismissing Genesis 1. Nothing in that chapter rules out evolution. It simply omits stories about evolution and extinction, which are totally unnecessary to understand the fact that God is the Creator of all natural things. His love for all of the things He created is the point. To say omissions mean events did not happen defies all of the scientific proof worldwide that Earth is billions of years old and millions of species are extinct.

 

[The Barbarian]

Being a theistic evolution or intelligent design believer is the opposite of dismissing Genesis 1. Nothing in that chapter rules out evolution. It simply omits stories about evolution and extinction, which are totally unnecessary to understand the fact that God is the Creator of all natural things. His love for all of the things He created is the point. To say omissions mean events did not happen defies all of the scientific proof worldwide that Earth is billions of years old and millions of species are extinct.

Today's winner.

 

[stevevw]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is through natural, unguided processes. No guidance. No plan. No creator.

Intelligent design is exactly as the name says. An intelligent, purposeful mind is the explanation. Even if you believe God could have coded a program to cause evolutionary change over billions of years, that is still not evolution. That is intelligent design. But, listening to the way people talk, I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design. You don't want to be that kind of Christian. Those kind of Christians tend to get ridiculed. And, it can get quite personal.

That's not hyperbole. I had an atheist tell me that he genuinely believed it was not only okay, but good, to ridicule Christians because reasoned arguments just don't work on them. The ridicule is like being cruel to be kind. They'll realize later, once they snap out of it, that it was for their own good. There's a good deal of people out there doing that kind of thing without being aware of it.

Calling it theistic evolution seems to cut down on at least some of that ridicule. At least you're getting the evolution part right. Most atheists seem to be happy with that trade off. But, I think it's time to stop being afraid to call it what it really is,; intelligent design. Give credit back to the creator where it belongs.

I don't think it matters that much in the end. Maybe calling it theistic evolution is a good compromise that enables a discussion to open up about some intelligence behind evolution. Afterall even staunch evolutionist like Dawkins acknowledges there is the appearence of design. I mean even if the watchmaker is blind he still produced a pretty amazing watch that seems to take intelligence to understand.

But I think if ID is real then even the naturalistic view of evolution will gradually reveal that design. It may be called another name and given a different explanation and cause but I think it will get to a point where that design cannot be ignored.

This is happening now where research is showing that evolution is much more than a blind and random process. Where natural selection and random mutations are not so dominent forces but rather only two influences amoung several and where processes are self generated, selforganised, directed towards certain outcomes. Where theres more agency and teleology within evolution.

What is theistic evolution anyway. It assumes Gods intervention somewhere so it must assume design, telology and agency. I don't think God created some universal life and took a blind bet that it would produce intelligent, moral and conscious beings able to have relationship with Him.

In fact I don't think God would have created the universe without humans being programmed so to speak into existence from the beginning. So technically we should be able to see that purpose and design in HIs creation from the beginning of time.

 

[trophy33]

What is theistic evolution anyway. It assumes Gods intervention somewhere

In my opinion, theistic evolution is the classic evolution, but the evolution is seen only as a mechanism that works in boundaries/framework set by God. I do not think some supernatural interventions during the evolution were needed.

I see it similarly like with the creation of the Universe. Everything was so precisely set in the beginning, that the natural processes automatically lead to forming stars, planets... and Earth.

 

[stevevw]

In my opinion, theistic evolution is the classic evolution, but the evolution is seen only as a mechanism that works in boundaries/framework set by God. I do not think some supernatural interventions during the evolution were needed.

I see it similarly like with the creation of the Universe. Everything was so precisely set in the beginning, that the natural processes automatically lead to forming stars, planets... and Earth.

and earth and 'us'.

I think this is the point all fields are converging on that behind the material processes there is something transcedent that points to a Mind. It makes sense because if something is to come from nothing then the nothing has to be something immaterial like Mind or Information. What we see is but a reflection of something deeper pointing to Mind.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (“The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)​

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think it matters that much in the end. Maybe calling it theistic evolution is a good compromise that enables a discussion to open up about some intelligence behind evolution. Afterall even staunch evolutionist like Dawkins acknowledges there is the appearence of design.

Darwin wrote that God just created the first living things. So it's been that way from the start.

In my opinion, theistic evolution is the classic evolution, but the evolution is seen only as a mechanism that works in boundaries/framework set by God. I do not think some supernatural interventions during the evolution were needed.

I see it similarly like with the creation of the Universe. Everything was so precisely set in the beginning, that the natural processes automatically lead to forming stars, planets... and Earth.

I think that's what Darwin meant...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Some IDers say that the universe was "front-loaded" to produce the things that form here. I think that's pretty close to the truth.

 

[stevevw]

Darwin wrote that God just created the first living things. So it's been that way from the start.

Yet somehow I don't think most non-theistic evolution supporters would acknowledge or be happy with that. Because that would mean acknowledging that God also designed the first living things to evolve more or less how they evolved. To be equipped with mechanisms that allow living things to adapt to the earth God also created.

Which makes sense as you don't create the earth and life to live on it without ensuring that life has the ability to adapt to it. Especially one that will be able to know their creator. That would also mean acknowledging that the appearence of that design is not just appearence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin wrote that God just created the first living things. So it's been that way from the start.

Yet somehow I don't think most non-theistic evolution supporters would acknowledge or be happy with that.

Yep. Fortunately, it doesn't matter. Darwin was there expressing his religious beliefs, not science. You don't have to have any particular view of God to do biology any more than you need a particular view of God to do physics.

Because that would mean acknowledging that God also designed the first living things to evolve more or less how they evolved.

That's what Darwin thought. It wasn't part of his theory, because science has no way of looking at that issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which makes sense as you don't create the earth and life to live on it without ensuring that life has the ability to adapt to it. Especially one that will be able to know their creator. That would also mean acknowledging that the appearence of that design is not just appearence.

There are some remarkably efficient diesel engines out there. They appear to have been wonderfully designed. But they weren't. They were evolved by Darwinian evolution, rather than by design. It turns out that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complicated problems. God knew this long before engineers realized it, and created accordingly.

Optimization and investigation the effects of using biodiesel-ethanol blends on the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine by genetic algorithm​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236120327496

 

[stevevw]

Darwin wrote that God just created the first living things. So it's been that way from the start.

Yep. Fortunately, it doesn't matter. Darwin was there expressing his religious beliefs, not science. You don't have to have any particular view of God to do biology any more than you need a particular view of God to do physics.

But surely the belief that God was involved does imply that there should be some design and teleology found in evolution which changes the assumptions about how evolution works and therefore should be reflected in a different ontology, epistemics and paradygm.

That's what Darwin thought. It wasn't part of his theory, because science has no way of looking at that issue.

But it can make a difference to assumptions and predictions. If you believe that life came about by a creator God then evolution is not the result of a naturalistic chance and random process. We should see more guidence, self organisation and agency at play that actually influences the direction of evolution towards what we see today.

 

[stevevw]

There are some remarkably efficient diesel engines out there. They appear to have been wonderfully designed. But they weren't. They were evolved by Darwinian evolution, rather than by design. It turns out that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complicated problems. God knew this long before engineers realized it, and created accordingly.

Optimization and investigation the effects of using biodiesel-ethanol blends on the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine by genetic algorithm​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236120327496

But then some configurations seem to be better than others when other configuration are considered. Maybe it is design be default in that natural selection is guided by other factors that are designed to utilize existing processes.

Like development bias, the constructive abilities of living things to direct their own evolution and the recipirical relationships that generate feedback between living things and their environments. These all have influences on the outcomes and are evolutionary forces in themselves rather than NS and random mutations which tend to be more unpredictable on their own.

It seems to me any creative ability that evolution produces is built on the back of these already existing natural processes which need to be taken into account. When they are it appears there is more guidence, direction, self organisation and agency that acknowledged.

 

[The Barbarian]

But then some configurations seem to be better than others when other configuration are considered. Maybe it is design be default in that natural selection is guided by other factors that are designed to utilize existing processes.

Turns out it's just random mutations and natural selection. The "other factors" are the way God created the world to make it so. If you like, you could use the thought that some IDers use; "designer front-loaded the rules of the universe to make this stuff happen."

Like development bias, the constructive abilities of living things to direct their own evolution and the recipirical relationships that generate feedback between living things and their environments.

Which developed by random mutation and natural selection. Would you like some examples?

These all have influences on the outcomes and are evolutionary forces in themselves rather than NS and random mutations which tend to be more unpredictable on their own.

Which is why scientists can predict certain things evolving in a given case, but can't say precisely how that will happen.

It seems to me any creative ability that evolution produces is built on the back of these already existing natural processes which need to be taken into account.

Darwin's discovery was that it was random mutation and natural selection. But if you have something specific to add to it, I'd like to hear about it.

When they are it appears there is more guidence, direction, self organisation and agency that acknowledged.

Perhaps you should read Adrian Bejean's Design in Nature. What you're suggesting relates to the Constructal Law.

Amazon.com