So, there's no question about the science of it.

[Smidlee]

In another word Remus, you must prove what evolutionist don't know is not possible . If you show it's not possible what they don't know then you get a Nobel Prize. Now evolution to the date is the best they got which shows they are in serious trouble to explain origins of species.
Also you need to understand all "real" scientist accept evolution because any scientist who questioned evolution is not a real scientist, he's religious.
I hope this helps.

 

[gluadys]

Even if we were to accept that it would be simple for a "simple" life form to become more complex, this would still have to be maintained throughout its evolution to the point that it wouldn't be simple to continue. Even then, we must take into account that this "simple" isn't really simple, and that it's not just as easy for it to evolve into something more complex.

I don't really understand what you are saying here or how it relates to what I said. But no matter. Before we get into details the question I really wanted an answer for is this:


Why have you concluded that it is implausible for complexity to evolve?

 

[Remus]

In another word Remus, you must prove what evolutionist don't know is not possible . If you show it's not possible what they don't know then you get a Nobel Prize. Now evolution to the date is the best they got which shows they are in serious trouble to explain origins of species.
Also you need to understand all "real" scientist accept evolution because any scientist who questioned evolution is not a real scientist, he's religious.
I hope this helps.

I think that does bring things into focus

 

[Remus]

Remus, another problem here is that you are simply saying "OK, but how does evolutionary theory explain THIS?" There will always be things that we can't explain in every field of science. The fact that we don't know exactly how a particular thing happened according to evolutionary processes is not an argument against it, it is just an argument from incredulity ("I just don't see how that could happen!"). Now, if you could show that a particular problem FALSIFIED evolution, meaning that you could show that it is simply not possible for something which has developed to have gotten there by evolution, then you would not only have a point, you would have a Nobel Prize.

As I stated from the beginning, I believe that it is not plausible. I am not out to prove or disprove anything. I would agree that if I were, it would be an argument from incredulity, but I believe that there is something more plausible than evolution that better explains diversity. Much more. So, if you want to argue that this is the best that science has, then you reach the root of the problem.

To your eye links, if you compare the link that you posted and the one that I did from the same site, you'll notice how different the diagrams are. Basically, your links are a gross oversimplification of the problem.

 

[Remus]

Why have you concluded that it is implausible for complexity to evolve?

I believe that it is implausible for the complexity that we see in the higher forms to have evolved to their present state via random mutation and natural selection. Knowing that there is a God, it is more plausible that He created everything fully formed. To add to this, we even have the Bible that says that He did. At least in my opinion. (there happy Vance? )

 

[gluadys]

I believe that it is implausible for the complexity that we see in the higher forms to have evolved to their present state via random mutation and natural selection. Knowing that there is a God, it is more plausible that He created everything fully formed. To add to this, we even have the Bible that says that He did. At least in my opinion. (there happy Vance? )

I don't know about Vance, but no, I am not happy with this response.

You had led me to believe that you had come to a rational conclusion. I expected this conclusion to be based on evidence and/or logic. All you have given me is an unsupported opinion, not a conclusion.

Where in the bible does it say that any living thing was created fully formed?

Knowing there is a God, what makes it more plausible that he created everything fully formed rather than creating life forms that evolved?

How is your opinion that God created everything fully formed consistent with observed speciation?

I am not going to quarrel with your statement of faith. Believe what you wish. But don't call it a conclusion. A conclusion is based on substantive arguments, not faith.

 

[SBG]

Genesis 2
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Is the output of the process not dependant on a random input?

Is not the output of a generator reliant on the ability of an electron to jump atoms randomly? But even with this random beginning we can easily form the order of electrical current. Are you saying that we can convert random into non random but God cannot?

 

[Remus]

I don't know about Vance, but no, I am not happy with this response.

You had led me to believe that you had come to a rational conclusion. I expected this conclusion to be based on evidence and/or logic. All you have given me is an unsupported opinion, not a conclusion.

Where in the bible does it say that any living thing was created fully formed?

Knowing there is a God, what makes it more plausible that he created everything fully formed rather than creating life forms that evolved?

How is your opinion that God created everything fully formed consistent with observed speciation?

I am not going to quarrel with your statement of faith. Believe what you wish. But don't call it a conclusion. A conclusion is based on substantive arguments, not faith.

Well, I'm sorry that I let you down.

 

[Vance]

The problem is that, even knowing there is a God, and that He is fully capable of creating everything in an instant, fully formed, you would still need to explain why you think this is the explanation of how God did it which best explains the data we have. If we agree that God could have done it either way, then it should be that the one which best fits the facts should be considered the most likely methodology used by God, right?

It is not "is the current theory of evolution perfect and explains everything that we can think of". No scientist has ever said that. The question is very simply what is best supported by the evidence we have, even taken into consideration a God which can act supernaturally. The fact that there might be (for now) unexplained steps from a given A to B does not mean that the theory is not the best one. Not by a long shot.

The bottom line is that the evidence simply does not support the idea of God creating everything all at once, fully formed. The fossil record, the dating, the biogeographical diversity, the DNA, the clear cladistics of morphology, the vestigals, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum (nearly) all point dramatically to the idea that our current diversity of species developed over billions of years from earlier species.

So, there are still two issues. The fact that you are not satisfied that the current theory of evolution (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc) explains that history, is only one of the issues. You still have that history to deal with as well. What you seem to be saying is not just that you don't think that the current theory about the mechanics works, but also that the history is wrong as well.

This is not addressed by simply pointing out issues with the mechanics of the ToE.

 

[Remus]

Actually the problem is if claims are made that evolution can do something then it should be possible to back that up. All we’ve had so far is with the issues that I’ve brought up is “it could happen”. Forgive me if I find that less than compelling. These are not minor issues either. These are fundamental to evolution. If evolution were as rock solid as we are led to believe, then we should have a better explanation than “it could happen”.

 

[Remus]

Is not the output of a generator reliant on the ability of an electron to jump atoms randomly? But even with this random beginning we can easily form the order of electrical current. Are you saying that we can convert random into non random but God cannot?

Actually I said several times that God could have done it either way. But that's beside the point.

Your analogy is faulty. You describe a machine that is designed to provide a deterministic output. As we've been told, even in this thread I believe, evolution has no goal and its output is not deterministic.

 

[Vance]

Actually the problem is if claims are made that evolution can do something then it should be possible to back that up. All we’ve had so far is with the issues that I’ve brought up is “it could happen”. Forgive me if I find that less than compelling. These are not minor issues either. These are fundamental to evolution. If evolution were as rock solid as we are led to believe, then we should have a better explanation than “it could happen”.

You ignored my point. The issue is what is the best explanation for the data we have. Yes, evolution can back up tons of what we see happening and what has happened. There are an incredible amount of stuff that it explains entirely, and that is all there for you to read in dozens and dozens of sources. This does not mean that we know exactly how it happened in every single situation one could ask about, that will never happen, and no one should expect it to.

And, yes, it is dramatically important that we show how something could have happened, since the only valid question you can ask of a theory about how things happened in the past is whether it could have happened a given way, and how likely it is for it to have happened that way. You can never prove that it DID happen a certain way. On the other hand, if you can show that something couldn't have happened a given way, given the data that we have, then you have falsified that theory, and it can be discarded.

As with all theories about the past, it is a matter of probabilities, not absolutes. Some of the probabilities are so dramatically well supported in SO many areas, and on so many fronts, that the probabilities rise to a level of near certainty (as with evolution), but never 100%.

Again, the idea that God created everything instantaneously and fully formed has already been falsfied. Not because it requires the supernatural, since that is not a problem unless you are an atheist. It has been falsified because if God had done it that way, then we would not have the data we do. So, the existence of the data eliminates that as a possibility.

Now, again, there are two issues. Often they are called the "fact" of evolutionary development and the theory of evolution. The first is considered a fact since the data says that the earth is billions of years old and that species have developed from earlier species over that period. Even the Christian ID guys accept this.

The question you are raising is only about whether the mechanics of the theory of evolution are a sufficient explanation for fact of evolutionary development over time. There is no scientist who will tell you that the theory of evolution, the proposed mechanics, is absolutely the complete explanation of the fact of evolutionary development. But it is definitely one that explains almost everything we see, and so it is a very reasonable deduction that it is also the explanation for the stuff we have not figured out yet. It is one that works, and that has been to shown to be a viable and un-falsified explanation.

Now, even those who have issues with the mechanics (and they are dramatically few among those who know this stuff), such as the ID guys, still accept the history, but they argue that the mechanics can't do it all. So, the only thing this means is that it STILL happened over billions of years, with development from common ancestors, but God had to tweak it along the way. Fine, that works for me as well. I think God could have set it up to run without His involvement, but for those who insist that the mechanics don't work completely, and want to see God fine tuning the mechanics, messing with genes, etc, that is fine.

 

[gluadys]

Actually the problem is if claims are made that evolution can do something then it should be possible to back that up. All we’ve had so far is with the issues that I’ve brought up is “it could happen”. Forgive me if I find that less than compelling. These are not minor issues either. These are fundamental to evolution. If evolution were as rock solid as we are led to believe, then we should have a better explanation than “it could happen”.

Excuse me, but I think you are using a double standard here. There is no problem with the evidential backup for evolution. The "problem" is that you have chosen on the basis of faith to adhere to a literal understanding of the Genesis creation accounts.

I put "problem" in quotes in that last sentence, because it is not a genuine problem. If that is what you choose to believe, that is what you choose to believe.

The genuine problem is that you don't have the integrity to say that you base your position on faith. Instead you make vague assertions about claims of evolution having insufficient evidential backup. But when asked specifically what the problem is with evolution, you can't provide an answer.

You know that a literal reading of the Genesis creation account has no scientific merit. It is flatly contradicted by science. But rather than being honest and saying "I will believe this, for reasons of faith, in spite of the fact it has no scientific support." you mewl about problems in the scientific account as if they had something to do with your faith decision.

If you have genuine scientific problems with evolution you should be able to discuss them. If you have no genuine scientific problems with evolution, but choose to believe something science does not support, why not be up-front that it is your faith that blocks acceptance of evolution---not weaknesses in the scientific theory.

 

[Vance]

Just to add to what Gluadys said, having a genuine problem with a scientific proposition does not mean taking isolated pot shots, but considering the issue as a whole. Looking at the whole of the evidence for and against, and explaining why it is more likely NOT to be valid than otherwise.

Yes, looking at individual issues is useful and important, but even a series of these (unless they actually falsify evolution) must be weighed in the balance of the entire evidence. A handful of "well, I just don't see how it could do that" items should not be sufficient to make any reasonable person reject a scientific theory when the vast majority of the evidence is very clearly in support of it. Yes, they should be addressed, and we should test whether evolution has a possible, or probable, answer for them. But to truly challenge either the issue of evolutionary development as an historical, and ongoing, event, or the theory of evolution as an explanation for it, you must do one of two things:

1. Show even a single falsification of evolution: something that has happened that simply can not have happened by evolution (which no opponents have been able to do even after 150 years of earnest efforts), or

2. Show that the evidence as a whole makes it more likely than not that evolution is not the best explanation of the data we have.

 

[Remus]

Excuse me, but I think you are using a double standard here. There is no problem with the evidential backup for evolution. The "problem" is that you have chosen on the basis of faith to adhere to a literal understanding of the Genesis creation accounts.

I put "problem" in quotes in that last sentence, because it is not a genuine problem. If that is what you choose to believe, that is what you choose to believe.

No gluadys, you are wrong. I am a creationist because I find ToE lacking, not the other way around.

The genuine problem is that you don't have the integrity to say that you base your position on faith.

Now you're questioning my integrity? That's uncalled for.

Instead you make vague assertions about claims of evolution having insufficient evidential backup. But when asked specifically what the problem is with evolution, you can't provide an answer.

How much more specific do I have to be? I use complexity as a reason. I used the eye as an example. All I've gotten is "it could happen". And you blast me for not being specific enough? Go look at the anatomy of just the lens of the eye! Do you want me to dig up pictures?

Funny thing, it’s only here at CF that I find people that can’t deal with anyone questioning ToE. I talk with someone out in the real world about the issues that I have and I usually get “yeah, I can understand where you’re coming from”. They don’t get all up in arms when ToE is challenged. One would think I could get at least that much from you.

You know that a literal reading of the Genesis creation account has no scientific merit. It is flatly contradicted by science. But rather than being honest and saying "I will believe this, for reasons of faith, in spite of the fact it has no scientific support." you mewl about problems in the scientific account as if they had something to do with your faith decision.

If you have genuine scientific problems with evolution you should be able to discuss them. If you have no genuine scientific problems with evolution, but choose to believe something science does not support, why not be up-front that it is your faith that blocks acceptance of evolution---not weaknesses in the scientific theory.

I for one don’t hold what comes out of the scientific community as the best source for truth. Even with that said, I’ve tried to discuss my problems. You focused on one and can only say “it could happen”. If you can do better than this, then we have something to talk about. If you have no answers and only want to browbeat me, then you waste my time.

 

[Vance]

Remus, are you saying that if it were not for your belief about what Scripture says, and you were looking at the evidence entirely without that influence, you would conclude that the theory of evolution is NOT the best explanation we have for the diversity of species?

If you say yes, then I would ask whether you came to that conclusion after a review of all of the evidence for and against evolution with as objective an eye as possible before coming to a conclusion?

Lastly, I would ask whether you have considered whether this conclusion might have been influenced by your beliefs about what Scripture said (which I assume was held before you began reviewing the evidence)?

Many, many TE's have come from backgrounds where they were raised to believe the YEC position, and assumed it to be true when they began looking at the evidence. So, it was, for us, not a matter of a bias leading us TO an acceptance of evolution. Instead, it took the overwhelming perponderance of evidence in favor of evolution to overcome the bias pulling in the other direction.

But, as to your objections to evolution, I have already pointed out that showing that it could have happened really is a valid response for this type of question. Your question is "how could this have happened via evolution" and we have shown you exactly how it could have happened via evolution.

And, as for complexity, that is just a non-starter from the beginning. Once you start with life that can reproduce itself with variations (and, remember, evolution is NOT abiogenesis), you WILL get complexity eventually. All it takes is the reproductive engine, variation in each generation, natural selection and isolation, and time.

If we took a handful of life forms, no matter how simple, and placed them on a new, rich planet with the right environment for growth, and just left them to it, it is very possible that in a few billion years we would see the same level of morphological complexity there as well. BTW, did you know that there are worms with the same amount of genetic material as humans? It's not what you got, but what you do with it.

 

[Remus]

Remus, are you saying that if it were not for your belief about what Scripture says, and you were looking at the evidence entirely without that influence, you would conclude that the theory of evolution is NOT the best explanation we have for the diversity of species?

Yes.

If you say yes, then I would ask whether you came to that conclusion after a review of all of the evidence for and against evolution with as objective an eye as possible before coming to a conclusion?

Yes. I gave it my best open-minded attempt. Actually, I gave it more than that. I wanted to believe it! But I can't make myself believe something.

Lastly, I would ask whether you have considered whether this conclusion might have been influenced by your beliefs about what Scripture said (which I assume was held before you began reviewing the evidence)?

I don't think so. My views had been in flux for some time and I don't know that I had a fully formed opinion at the time.

Many, many TE's have come from backgrounds where they were raised to believe the YEC position, and assumed it to be true when they began looking at the evidence. So, it was, for us, not a matter of a bias leading us TO an acceptance of evolution. Instead, it took the overwhelming perponderance of evidence in favor of evolution to overcome the bias pulling in the other direction.

I learned a long time ago that a lot of what I had been taught was in error and I had to relearn everything. That is when I learned to rely on myself and God. This is how it should be, so it wasn't a bad thing.

But, as to your objections to evolution, I have already pointed out that showing that it could have happened really is a valid response for this type of question. Your question is "how could this have happened via evolution" and we have shown you exactly how it could have happened via evolution.

Valid responses shouldn't be confused with compelling arguments. And I found what you used to show “how it could have happened” overly simplified.

And, as for complexity, that is just a non-starter from the beginning. Once you start with life that can reproduce itself with variations (and, remember, evolution is NOT abiogenesis), you WILL get complexity eventually. All it takes is the reproductive engine, variation in each generation, natural selection and isolation, and time.

If we took a handful of life forms, no matter how simple, and placed them on a new, rich planet with the right environment for growth, and just left them to it, it is very possible that in a few billion years we would see the same level of morphological complexity there as well. BTW, did you know that there are worms with the same amount of genetic material as humans? It's not what you got, but what you do with it.

How can you say "WILL get complexity eventually"? Has this ever been established scientifically?

 

[Vance]

OK, I accept your answers. Have you really done a lot of reading on evolution, though, from non-Creationist sources? Just curious.

As for knowing that we would get complexity, it is just math. You take some organisms that reproduce with variation, given them an environment in which there is a benefit to slightly more complex morphology, and those variations which lead toward complexity will be selected and eventually bring about the complexity. Now, it is true that this is not completely a given because you also have to factor in the race against time. It is possible that there may not be enough, or the right type, of variations to lead to the complexity before extinction occurs (which is what happens to most species, they die out before they can adapt to a new environmental pressure). My statement was more in the line of the infinite monkeys and typewriters variety.

 

[gluadys]

No gluadys, you are wrong. I am a creationist because I find ToE lacking, not the other way around.

Then why are you unable to define in what way the ToE is lacking?

Now you're questioning my integrity? That's uncalled for.

I think it is hypocritical to cite reason A as the basis of your position when the real basis is reason B. And judging by your posts, I think that is what you are doing. Perhaps you have convinced yourself that reason A is the real reason. But unless you can show how reason A factors in, you are not convincing anyone else that it is the real reason.

How much more specific do I have to be? I use complexity as a reason.

Be more specific about how evolution fails to account for complexity. Where do the mechanisms of evolution fail to produce complexity? It is not enough just to say: "complexity" as if I knew what you meant by just that one word.

I used the eye as an example. All I've gotten is "it could happen". And you blast me for not being specific enough? Go look at the anatomy of just the lens of the eye! Do you want me to dig up pictures?

And what is wrong with the Darwinian scenario. (I take it you have actually read Origin of Species. Or the Nilsson and Pelger model?

Are you actually asking, in the infancy of studying the origin of genetic sequences, for a mutation by mutation account of the evolution of something as complex as the eye? And let's not forget that the eye likely originated independently some 40 times, so that is 40 starting points to find, and millions of specific pathways dealing with dozens of specific features. Do you have the vaguest idea how much computer time it will take to get that specific?

Meanwhile, we do have existing models of vision systems ranging from simple photoreceptor cells to complex eyes of many forms. And we find them in the bodies of animals whose complexity tends to match that of the eye: simple photoreceptor cells in simple unicellular organisms and complex eyes in complex animals. And finally, we have evidence that the complex life forms are descendants of simple life forms. So why is it such a big stretch to conclude that the complexity of the eye developed along with the overall complexity of the body?

Pinpointing the eye in particular does not make a convincing case for rejecting the evolution of complexity. It is simply one example of the general trend from simple to complex that we see in the history of biology.

So lets zero in on the real issue: is evolution totally incapable of producing any complexity at all? Is it incapable, for example, of producing a photosynthesizing bacterium from a non-photosynthetic predecessor? If so, why?

Funny thing, it’s only here at CF that I find people that can’t deal with anyone questioning ToE. I talk with someone out in the real world about the issues that I have and I usually get “yeah, I can understand where you’re coming from”. They don’t get all up in arms when ToE is challenged. One would think I could get at least that much from you.

Believe it or not, I live in the real world too.

I for one don’t hold what comes out of the scientific community as the best source for truth.

Depends on what kind of truth right? Science doesn't claim to be the sole source of all truth. But it is the best known source about physical nature. Can you point to anything else that could have given us the knowledge to send probes into space, combat disease effectively, significantly raise the level of agricultural production, just to name a few items?

Even with that said, I’ve tried to discuss my problems. You focused on one and can only say “it could happen”.

And I specifically said it was because there were too many to discuss at once. I am quite willing to discuss every item you named, each in turn. And I only focused on complexity because it was the first item on your list.

No I don't want to browbeat you. I just want to see a real explanation based on your own statements that you had examined the scientific basis for evolution and found it lacking. It is too easy to recite this mantra. I want to see what evidence you examined and what problems you have with it.

So answering a question about your "scientific" rejection of complexity with a statement of faith was most unsatisfactory. I want your scientific objections to the concept that complexity can evolve.